United States y •"• ^
Environmental Protection
Prevention, Pesticides arid
Toxic Substances
EPA 735-R97-001
March 1997
A National Dialofue on the
Worker Protection Standard
Part I: Transcripts of the Public Meetings


A National  Dialogue on the
Worker Protection Standard
Part I: Transcripts of the Public Meetings
Office of Pesticides Programs
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 1997
prepared by:
Gilah Langner
Stratton Associates, Inc.
under subcontract to EPA/USDA
Cooperative Agreement No. 58-0790-2-205

National Dialogue on the Worker Protection Standards
Location of Public Meetings, Feb. 22,1996 - Aug. 21,1996
   Pasoo, WA
   June 19,1996
 Salinas, CA
 July 25,1996
  Fresno, CA
  July 23,1996"^
Portageville, MO
Aug. 7,1996  Tipton, IN
        Aug. 21,1996
              Biglerville, PA
              June 26,1996
                                        Stoneville, MS
                                        April 10,1996
                                                        Winter Haven, FL
                                                        Feb. 22,1996
                          McAllen, TX
                          April 25,1996

 Table of Contents

1.     Introduction
       Transcript of Public Meeting
       Registered Participants in the Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Written Comments

3.     Mississippi

       Transcript of Public Meeting
       Registered Participants in the Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Written Comments

4.     Texas

       Transcript of Public Meeting
       Registered Participants in the Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Transcripts of Meetings with Farmworkers
       Written Comments

5.     Washington

       Minutes of the Public Meeting
       Registered Participants in the Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Transcript of Farmworker Meeting
       Written Comments







       Transcript of Public Meeting
       Registered Participants  in the Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Written Comments


       Transcript of the Fresno Public Meeting
       Registered Participants  in the Fresno Public Meeting
       Transcript of the Salinas Public Meeting
       Registered Participants  in the Salinas Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Transcripts of Site Visits
       Written Comments


       Transcript of Public Meeting
       Registered Participants  in the Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Written Comments


       Transcript of Public Meeting
       Registered Participants  in the Public Meeting
       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions
       Written Comments






EPA Participants

State Participants

For More Information



           The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the EPA Regional Offices would like to acknowledge
           and thank the farmworkers, growers, industry and trade association representatives, public interest
           groups, labor representatives, health professionals, and others who took the time to participate in
           the public meetings and site visits around the country. Their in-depth comments and "frontline"
           observations provided us with important insights into the impact of the WPS on the agricultural
           community, successes and difficulties in implementing the standard, and recommendations for

           We wish to acknowledge the efforts of our state and county extension partners for supporting this
           effort and for their invaluable help in identifying participants in outreach activities and site visits.
           We extend our gratitude to those who allowed state and federal officials to tour their facilities.
           These tours provided the regulatory community with an opportunity to observe and ask questions
           about WPS implementation in progress. Migrant health clinics, unions, and legal services graciously
           opened their offices and facilitated exchanges between the Agency and farmworkers. We appreciate
           the willingness of farmworkers to share their experiences, issues, and concerns during the after-work
           discussion sessions.  We would especially like to  recognize the following individuals  for their
           outstanding contributions  in making arrangements and  facilitating discussions during the WPS
           National Dialogue:

           FL:    Dr. Mari Dugarte-Stavanja, Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services;
                 Dr. Marion Fuller, Bureau of Pesticides; O.  Norman Nesheim, Florida State Cooperative

           MS:   Robert McCarty, Mississippi Department of Agriculture; Charles Armstrong, Arkansas
                 State Plant Board

           TX:    Randy Rivera and Jose Sanchez, Texas Department of Agriculture

           WA:   Anne Wick, Washington Department of Agriculture; Dr. Alice Larson, Work Group on
                 Pesticide Health and Safety

           PA:    David Bingaman, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; William Kleiner, Adams
                 County Cooperative Extension
                                                                          National Dialogue  i

          CA:   Dan Lynch, California Department of Pesticide Regulation; Doug Edwards, Fresno
                 Office of Agricultural Commissioner; Don Villarejo and Celia Prado, California Institute
                 for Rural Studies, Luis Magafia, Organizacion de Trabajadores Agricolas de California;
                 Francis Pabrua, Monterey Office of Agricultural Commissioner; Terry Gomez, Clinica de
                 Salud del Valle de Salinas

          MO:  Paul Andre, Missouri Department of Agriculture; Pasquale Lombardo, Illinois Legal

          IN:   Joe Becovitz, Office of the Indiana State Chemist; Dr. Fred Whitford, Purdue University;
                 Dr. James Wolf, Tipton County Extension Service; Ray Noble, Ray Brothers & Noble
                 Canning Company, Inc.; Scott Smith, Sharpview Farms; and Jose Perez, Indiana Health
                 Centers, Inc.

          A special note of thanks goes to Debbie Thomas of the EPA Federal Register Staff for her rapid
          response in publishing the public meeting notices; to the facilitators and interpreters at each of the
          public meetings; and to Gilah Langner for editorial services.  To the many individuals at EPA
          Headquarters and Regional offices listed at the back of this document who provided support and
          time, we extend our sincere appreciation  for their contributions to this important national effort.
ii  National Dialogue

1.   Introduction
              This document is the record of a National
          Dialogue of public  meetings and site visits
          held during the spring and summer of 1996 on
          the Worker Protection Standard (WPS).  The
          WPS is EPA's primary program to ensure that
          agricultural workers and employers  have the
          information  they need  to  protect workers
          from pesticide risks. The National Dialogue
          on the WPS represents EPA's first  effort to
          assess  the  effectiveness   of  the  revised
          standard, which took effect in 1995.
              In 1992, EPA issued a major revision of
          the Worker  Protection  Standard, aimed at
          improving protection of employees on farms,
          forests,  nurseries, and  greenhouses from
          occupational pesticide risks.  Implementation
          of the  new WPS provisions was phased in
          over time, with the standard coming into full
          force in January 1995. After the first year of
          full  implementation  of the  WPS,  EPA
          conducted nine public  meetings between
          February and September 1996, to  evaluate
          progress and  hear the experiences  of the
          people most affected by the WPS.
             In all, EPA met with over 1,000 people,
          including 560 who  attended  the  public
          meetings and another 500 who met with EPA
          in 43 site visits at diverse locations, ranging
          from union meeting halls and crop fields to
          health clinics and processing plants.  Partici-
          pants included agricultural workers, pesticide
          handlers,   farmers  and  growers,   health
          professionals, representatives of agriculture
 and labor organizations, and a variety of other
    The meetings are an initial step in EPA's
 ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate the
 performance of the WPS program. Meetings
 were held in  the following states: Florida,
 Mississippi, Washington, Texas, Pennsylvania,
 California  (two  meetings),  Missouri, and
 Indiana.  The locations were selected to offer
 a wide representation of agricultural situations,
 and to involve frontline stakeholders with
 whom EPA in the past  has had limited and
 less direct contact.

 Background on the WPS

    The  1992  Worker Protection Standard
 strengthens safeguards for over three and a
 half million people who work with pesticides
 at over 560,000 workplaces. The provisions  of
 the Worker Protection Standard are directed
 toward the working conditions of two types  of

 •  Pesticide handlers—those who mix, load,
 or apply agricultural pesticides; clean or repair
 pesticide application equipment; or assist with
 the application  of pesticides in anyway.

 • .Agricultural workers—those who perform
tasks related to  the cultivation and harvesting
of  plants on  farms  or  in  greenhouses,
nurseries, or forests.
                                                                        National Dialogue  1

             The Worker Protection Standard

             In 1992,  EPA  issued a final rule revising the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural
             pesticides. Implementation of the revised WPS was phased in, and the new standard came into
             full force on January 1,1995. Its provisions are designed to achieve three basic goals:

             Inform employees about the use and hazards of pesticides:

                     Workers must be notified about treated areas so they may avoid inadvertent exposures
                     to pesticides.

                     Handlers and workers  must  be informed of pesticide  safety requirements and
                     information. Employers must post information about recent pesticide applications in a
                     central location on the agricultural establishment.

                     Training  is required for handlers and workers who enter recently treated areas, and a
                     pesticide safety poster must be displayed.

              Eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides:

                     Handlers are prohibited from applying pesticides in ways that would result in unnecessary
                     exposure of workers or other people.  Agricultural workers are excluded from treated
                     while pesticides are being applied.

                     EPA-established restricted entry intervals (REIs) must be specified on all agricultural
                     pesticide product labels.  Workers are excluded from entering a pesticide-treated area
                     during the restricted entry interval, except under certain conditions. REIs generally range
                     from 12 to 72 hours, depending on the toxicity of the chemical.

                     Personal protective equipment (PPE) must be provided and maintained for handlers and
                     early-entry workers, as specified on the EPA-approved pesticide label.

              Mitigate the effects of exposures that occur:

                     Employers must make available to handlers and workers an ample supply of soap, water,
                     and towels for routine washing and emergency decontamination.

                      Employers must make transportation to a medical care facility available if a worker or
                      handler may have been  poisoned or injured. Information must be provided about the
                      pesticide to which the person may have been exposed.
2  National Dialogue

    After a review of its existing standards in
 the early 1980s, EPA determined that they
 were inadequate  to  protect  workers and
 handlers  from pesticide risks.  The revised
 regulations, developed over a ten-year period,
 are intended to reduce  the risk of pesticide
 poisonings and injuries among agricultural
 workers  and  pesticide handlers  through
 specific exposure reduction measures, training,
 and information (see box on previous page).

 The National Dialogue Meetings

    At each National Dialogue meeting, as a
 framework for discussion, EPA asked  farm-
 workers,  growers, and  other attendees  to
 address the following questions:

 •  What successes have you had in imple-
 menting the WPS requirements?

 •  What difficulties have you had, and how
 do you suggest EPA improve the program?

 •  How well did the assistance you have
 received so far (from EPA guidance, training
 materials, etc.) help you,  and what additional
 assistance would you like in the future?

    At each of the three-hour meetings, an
EPA  official opened the dialogue with brief
introductory comments.  Participants  were
asked to sign up to  speak and were given five
minutes or more to speak, depending on the
number of speakers in  the room.  Open
registration on the day of the meeting was
done on a first come, first served basis. In the
days before and after the public meetings,
 EPA  staff made 43  site visits  to farms,
 nurseries, farm labor camps, health clinics, and
 aerial  applicators  to  obtain  a  close-up
 understanding of the issues and  challenges
 involved in implementing the WPS.
    This report presents the transcripts from
 the nine public meetings,  as well as a list of
 participants who  registered at each meeting
 and a summary of the site visits made by EPA
 staff.   In  some  cases, the transcripts  are
 incomplete due to failures in tape recording
 equipment In these instances, EPA prepared
 minutes of the meeting, which were reviewed
 and approved by the speakers. Where EPA
 had received permission to tape the site visits
 and small  group  discussions, transcripts  of
 those meetings are included as well. Written
 comments  submitted by participants in the
 public meetings are appended to each chapter.

 Next Steps

    Agricultural workers, growers,  pesticide
 handlers, health professionals,  and  others
 who participated  in  the National Dialogue
 meetings provided unique insights into the
 effects of the WPS requirements. The input
 received thus far will be supplemented by data
 generated from additional,  ongoing outreach
 efforts during the course of EPA's longer-
 term evaluation effort.
    This document is the first of two reports
 on the National Dialogue outreach effort, and
 is intended to present a strictly factual account
 of the meetings. An analysis of the feedback
received on implementation of the WPS and
a discussion of next steps will be the focus of
a subsequent report.
                                                                National Dialogue  3




2.   Florida
       Public Meeting:

          Winter Haven, FL
                February 22,1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •     85 participants (82 registered), including 26 speakers

       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions:
          Farmworkers, Citrus Orchards, Hillsborough County, FL
                 February 23,1996, 5:00 a.m.
          •      EPA staff met with citrus workers as they harvested oranges, accompanied by Fernando
                 Cuevas, Sr. and Jr., of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC)/AFL-CIO.

          Alcoma Citrus Packing & Processing Company, Lake Wales, FL
                 February 23,1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •      Tour of large citrus growing and processing operations.
          •      EPA staff met with Bob McKown of Florida Citrus Mutual; Phillip Herndon and family
                 of Alcoma Citrus.

          Fancy Farms Strawberry Production, Plant City, FL
                 February 23,1996,1:00 p.m.
          •      Tour of medium-sized strawberry production facility.
          •      EPA staff met with Carl Grooms, manager/owner of Fancy Farms; Chip Hinton of
                 Florida Strawberry Growers Association; Fernando Cuevas, Sr. and Jr. of FLOC (AFL-

          Migrant Housing, Lake Apopka, FL
                 February 23, 1996, 5:00 p.m.
          •      Tour of migrant housing.

          Farmworkers, Apopka, FL
                 February 23,1996, 6:00 p.m.
          •      EPA staff met with seasonal and migrant farmworkers; Tirso Moreno and staff of the
                 Farm Workers Association of Florida.
                                                                                 Florida  5

Transcript of Public Meeting
Winter Haven, Florida
February 22,1996
              Steve Rutz:  I'd like to thank our working
          representatives, as well as our grower and rural
          representatives,  for attending this evening's
          first meeting on  worker protection being
          hosted  by the Environmental  Protection
          Agency (EPA).  My name is Steve Rutz.  I'm
          the Division Director for the Division of Ag
          and Environmental Services for the Florida
          Department  of  Agricultural  Consumer
          Services (DAGS).  I'd also like to thank the
          EPA, in particular Dr. Goldman, for coming
          down   this  evening and   showing  and
          expressing the interest that she has in learning
          more  about how the worker  protection
          program is working here in Florida as well as
          some of the problems and obstacles that you
          see in terms of its successful implementation.
              I'd  like to go across the table and real
          briefly just make a couple of introductions.
          Dr. Marion Fuller, Chief of the Bureau of
          Pesticides for the Florida Department of
          Agricultural Consumer Services,  Dr. Norm
          Nesheim, Pesticide Information Coordinator
          for  the University  of Florida Institute of
          Agricultural Sciences, and Dr. Lynn Goldman.
          Lynn is the Assistant Administrator for the
          EPA Office for the Preventions of Pesticides
          and Toxic Substances. We also have Mr. Jesse
          Baskerville, Director of the EPA Office of
          Regulatory  Enforcement  in  Compliance
          Assurance, and Mr. Dale Dobberly, Chief of
the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring for
Agriculture and Consumer Services.
   Again, Dr. Goldman, I want to thank you
for being here. Just as a matter of protocol
this evening, Dr. Marion Fuller will be serving
as our workshop facilitator here.  She's going
to be sort of a traffic cop who deals with time
allowance issues and things like that. So if you
see Marion standing up and waving her hands
acting like she's in some sort of a panic, that
means that probably she wants to try to move
on to buy time for each speaker to cover the
topic they want to cover. And with that, I'd
like to introduce Dr. Goldman and ask that
she make some introductory remarks to the

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: What I'm going to
do is, given the size  of the room and the size
of the crowd, I thought I'd move down a little
closer to all of you and maybe do this a little
bit less formally. I do want to welcome you all
here and wish you a good evening. I and my
colleagues,  the EPA with the Florida State
Department of Agriculture, are here to listen
to all of you about your experiences with the
implementation  of the Worker  Protection
Standards  [WPS]. And I should say that this
is, I  think, a very important thing that we're
doing here tonight.  Too frequently in the
government we put into play new regulations
6  Florida

 and measures and then we don't evaluate how
 effective those measures are.  I think it's part
 of our effort to evaluate how well the standard
 is working. I also think that too often we in
 Washington are  the nameless and faceless
 ones,  the people whose names you see but
 think you don't have a chance to meet with
'and speak with. Much  of the purpose  of this
 whole meeting is to maintain that face-to-face
 interaction—communication that you need to
 have  to really be  able  to understand  what's
 going on.
    The Worker Protection Standard is a very
 basic set of protections for workers that work
 with  pesticides.   It informs the  employees
 about the hazards of pesticides, eliminates
 exposures to the  pesticides, and helps us to
 mitigate the exposures when they do occur
 and to treat  the  exposures when  they  do
 occur. It does represent a major strengthening
 of the standards that are on the books on the
 federal level compared  to what existed in the
 past.   And, I  should say that  it's  taken well
 over a decade to achieve the strengthening.
    It was not an easy contest within the EPA,
 and within our  country,  to   develop  the
 regulations. When I joined EPA two and one-
 half years  ago, the regulations had already
 been enacted but I had the job of making sure
 that we could implement the regulations.  I
 must say that, just as the development  of the
 regulations was not easy, the implementation
 likewise was complicated and has required a
 lot of effort. We estimate there are 3.5 mil-
 lion people (farmworkers and other pesticide
 handlers)  who  receive protection  today
 because of the regulations.  So that is  a very
 important group  people whom we wish  to
 protect.  The implementation efforts, in my
 opinion, have been one of the most extensive
 sets of efforts that we have ever done.  We
 have produced and  distributed a very large
 number of training materials, some of which
 are available out in the lobby today. We have
 supported  educational efforts.   We  have
 supported state efforts. We have also needed
 to  respond to some specific  concerns that
 have been raised both by farmworkers and by
 agricultural   groups   in   the  process  of
 implementation. And, I have to say that not
 every situation that  occurs  in agriculture is
 foreseen by the people who write the rules.
 Also, many  specific questions have come up
 that actually were covered by the rules but that
 needed interpretation  so that everybody could
 understand exactly how to carry out the rules.
 When you think about it, that's inevitable-
 when you have a process that requires the act
 of  cooperation of so  many people in this
 country, and so many people involved in it—
 not only every single worker  but all of the
 farmers and the pesticide workers—that's a
 complex process.
    Some of the amendments that we made:
 We accelerated the transition from 15 days to
 five days for  the training grace period and also
 required that employers assure that untrained
workers   receive  basic  pesticide  safety
 information before they enter the working
 area.  We exempted qualified  crop advisors
 frpm some requirements.  We allowed  early
 entry into pesticide treated areas  to perform
 certain limited contact and irrigation activities.
And we established criteria that would allow
us to establish a class of low toxicity pesticides
that can qualify for reduced restricted entry
                                                                             Florida  7

          intervals (REIs) of 12 to 24 hours. As a result
          of the 1995 changes, training is now required
          within  five  days  of  employment on an
          establishment if the workers will be entering
          recently treated areas.  Basic pesticide safety
          information  must  be  provided  before
          untrained workers enter a treated area; and
          critical irrigation and certain limited contact
          tasks can  now be  conducted during  the
          restricted entry intervals.  Nearly  80  low
          toxicity end-use products have received the 4-
          hour REIs. We have some actions in place to
          add to  the  list  some other  low  toxicity
          pesticides   under   the   new   criteria.
              As we work to carry out this program, we
          will continue to work closely with those of
          you who are affected by it to address and
          identify  new issues of concern.  We don't
          believe that the work we've done over the last
          couple  of years is the end, in terms of our
          understanding the  full impacts of the bill and
          what we need to do to make it work for all of
          you. I know that many of you have concerns
          about the requirement—about  the costs of
          complying with the requirement, about the
          enforcement of the standard, and probably
          other issues.  Really, tonight's the night for
          those of you who have concerns to talk and
          for those us  who work for the EPA and for
          the state, for listening. So I really do want to
          take the time to hear it  straight from you—
          your thoughts about worker  protection
          and/or  what is working and what is not
              I want to close by saying that we have a
          very strong commitment to making this pro-
          gram work, in a way that protects the health
           of the public in that it lessens risks while pro-
viding flexibility.  We have to find concrete
ways to achieve our goals and that has been
our approach over the last few years.  I'm
looking forward to hearing all your comments
and I want to thank you all for being here
tonight.  I'm now going to turn things over to
Marion Fuller who is our facilitator.

    Dr.  Marion  Fuller:   I'll  be serving as
facilitator and sort of a timekeeper to make
sure that everyone who signed up has an
opportunity to be heard.  It's very important
for us tonight to  hear what everyone has to
say.  What we're doing is taking each speaker
in the order  of which you signed up (and
that's been provided to me right here).  I'll call
your  number and that  person having that
number (and, everybody has  your card?)
should come  up here and speak. You'll be
given about five  minutes and as your five
minutes is coming to an end, I'll stand up and
if you'll just take that as a signal to wrap it up,
I think we can keep things moving rather well.
For those speakers who do not speak English,
we do  have both  a  Spanish and  Creole
translator here at our table.  They will translate
for us so you don't need to be too concerned
about our understanding.  If you're more
comfortable speaking in Spanish or Creole,
feel free to  do  so and pause  every two
sentences so that they can translate that for
us. And, if you'll work with them, I think that
we'll move along fairly smoothly.  With that,
we'll take  our first speaker,  number 26, I
believe that's Charlie Matthews.

    Charlie Matthews:  Good evening, my
name is Charlie Matthews and I'm with the
8  Florida

Florida Fruit and Vegetable  Association.
FFVA  is   a  voluntary  association  and
represents  the majority of the fruits and
vegetable growers in the state.  FFVA has
been working with WPS—more than 10 years
were the original negotiations—and has been
involved in  the  process  throughout, and
currently we are providing a training service
for our rural members.  So we're well familiar
with WPS and  I  think that some  of our
comments will reflect on what our growers are
telling us. We sincerely appreciate  you folks
being here this evening, particularly the people
from Washington—that you support us, that
you hear us, and we're glad that you're here
and take the time.  I'd also like to congratulate
our Department of Agriculture and tell you
and Dr. Goldman  that the people in Florida,
in my opinion, have been doing a yeoman's
job in  handling this very difficult regulation.
    I want to cover five quick  things and I
believe we have about  a half of a minute for
each.   The  first thing is the  regulation  is
extremely complicated.  If you'll remember a
year ago this was the Worker Protection
Standard: When you  talk about the basics,
these are the basics—about spraying people,
about violating the entry intervals—those types
of things that are easy to remember  and
provide Florida with a great deal of protection
for our workers.  Since that time, and I want
to give you a quick example, this is a dual or
split label, a widely used product in the state.
The label is 71 pages long. So if I'm going to
make  an application, I, of course, read my
label.   The next thing I do is refer to the
Worker Protection Standard and that's 65
pages long. If I don't understand that, I move
to the abbreviated version of the "How to
Comply" manual and that's 149 pages long.
Then, in 1995, we added some revisions to
WPS, a 33-page Federal ~Register notice. Then in
September of 1995, we had another addition
to WPS and that would have been 10 pages.
And then, if you have any questions about
this, yes, there are almost a hundred Q&As
and that's 114 pages long.  If you're making a
recording, that's  a total of 442 pages that we
must know and comprehend in order to make
a;legal pesticide application in the state. In my
opinion, that is  extremely complicated  and
hpw we ever went  from one page to  442
pages, I don't quite understand. Complicated!
    The next thing, the decontamination unit:
We added the "plus  thirty" days right at the
last minute when the WPS was finally passed.
The  decontamination  facilities  are  very
expensive for our growers. They don't mind—
I don't think they mind—providing decon-
tamination facilities  for  mixer loaders  and
within the restricted entry intervals.  But to
add another 30  days,   I  think,  is  very
erroneous, particularly when you think about
some  of our cultivation and low contact
activities that currently are now exempted
from the regulations. The decontamination,
at least the "plus thirty" days, is a real burden
here in Florida. And the "plus thirty" days got
slipped in right at the end. Over nine years
nobody had ever talked about the "plus thirty"
days, but then right at the last minute, at least
from what I'm aware of, the "plus thirty" days
got slipped in. The reason it was put in there
was, at least the way it's been explained to me,
is California data—there were instances where
they were having worker exposure and toxicity
                                                                              Florida  9

           problems for the workers that would go in
           beyond the re-entry interval.  If you talk with
           our compliance people over the last ten years,
           or as long as they've been keeping records, we
           have never had this problem in Florida where
           workers  have  entered  fields  beyond the
           restricted entry intervals.   We have  had
           problems with misuses  and those type of
           things but never  have  we  had a toxicity
           problem  beyond re-entry. Correct?
               So decontamination.  The next thing is
           about  [Inaudible]... in Florida.  We have a
           complicated system for storing both fruits and
           vegetables.  The WPS  is meant to  cover
           everybody all the way from the worker to the
           owner. In more simple terms, soybean fields
           and those types of things, it's two people. In
           Florida, you go from the owner that's living in
           Wisconsin, that's living  in Nebraska,  back
           down to the caretaker who's doing the day-to-
           day business, back through the processor or
           packer who's actually  calling the shots, all the
           way through  to the  workers, and it's very
           complicated. Then add that to the exchange
           of information—who  tells who what they've
           done, who's liable.
              Finally, the restricted entry intervals. The
           EPA has  placed a tremendous burden on the
           producer community. They have not placed
           the burden on the manufacturers. EPA asked
           the manufacturers to place certain REIs on
           the chemicals. Well, it's real easy to slap it on
           the label  and then walk away from it. And I
           can't really blame a manufacturer for doing
           that.  In  Florida, we  have several problems
           when we have to send hand labor into those
           fields. Our hand labor is extremely important
           to us, extremely. If we don't have hand labor,
we don't grow certain crops in the state of
Florida.  With these  re-entry intervals  that
have been reduced, things have gone from
"dust has settled and  sprays  have dried," to
"48  hours" for elemental compounds  like
copper, sulphur, and  some of other  basics.
This has caused an extreme  burden for our
scheduling and how we can harvest crops.
    Those are five things we'd  like you to look
at and if the EPA would like us to give a little
detail in written comments we will be happy
to provide them. Thanks again for coming to
Florida.  Glad we had  good weather for you.
Hope it will remain the  same over the next
couple of days.

    Dr. Marion Fuller:  EPA has requested
that  speakers  provide their comments in
writing to make sure that the points you wish
to make are made and are a part of the record.
Keep that in mind and provide them.

    Perry Sparkman: Good evening. I want
to speak with two voices tonight.  First, as
chairman  of the Pesticide Review Council,
which is a statutory council, whose mission is
to review all activities on pesticides in the state
of Florida and make recommendations to the
Commissioner of  Agriculture  and  other
agencies and to the University of Florida as
needed.  We were involved  from the vety
beginning in the implementation of the WPS,
and every meeting from the past whenever we
started, we've  either had Norm Nesheim or
somebody from DACS giving us an update,
input, and the implementation process. As we
went through  this  it seemed to me that, as
complicated as this WPS was, the  major
10  Florida

problem the state people were encountering
was trying to get replies back from the EPA
on interpretations of the rules.  And this, I
think,  held up the state effort more than
anything else.  Just to close on that, I think
that DAGS and CES and the growers have
made   very   admirable    progress   in
implementing, given the time that was allotted
to get this thing going.
   As a small grower, there's two things that
really bother me.  One is, I do some of my
own  spraying.   The other is  done  by a
caretaker.   As  a  small operator, I'm now
required to wear the same PPE as a worker. I
resent this. It is a big brother telling me what
I should do for my own health.  I see no
difference from telling overweight people that
they have to lose so many pounds or they are
going to be fined and penalized. Ironically, as
an  owner,  if I  was  caught  by  Dale's
enforcement group not wearing this PPE, I
could be fined  and penalized for this.  Yet a
worker who has been  trained by a grower,
given the PPE, is not required or would not
be penalized if he  did not wear, or follow the
instructions that he's been given. I find this
sort of ironic that I can be penalized regarding
my own health and yet a worker can ignore
everything that he's been told.
    The  other thing  that  I object very
strenuously  against is,  as the owner of the
property  I  am  liable,  regardless  of the
circumstances of the workers who come on
my field.  We have a peculiar situation in
Florida (it may be in other fruit growing areas,
I don't know),  but where I  sell my  fruit to a
contractor, I have absolutely no control over
the workers that come into my groves to
harvest the fruits.  Yet according to all the
legal advice we've gotten, I am still liable for
any actions mat might occur if that worker has
not been trained or if something happens to
him. Now this is not true in any other type of
business in the United States.  It only applies
to agriculture and I feel this is certainly a
situation which  should  not occur.  Along
those lines of trying to work something out,
we came up with the idea (and a number of
people were involved in putting this together)
of a  checklist to  be used  by a  grower, a
caretaker, and a harvester. The Farm Bureau,
USDA,  Dale Dobberly's  office, Norm's
offices, and the grower—we  had a grower
meeting here in Winter Haven—we came up
with a form that could be used, where each
person would check what his responsibility
would be on the WPS. I feel that if we could
get some legal  interpretation,  that if the
grower does this, and he has done everything
within his power  to see that everybody is
meeting the WPS—the caretaker, the harvester
that come in his operation—then he should be
cleared of any liability in court.  Thank you,
that's all I have to say.

   Tommy Smith: I would like to say that
I'm glad that you all took the opportunity and
that I got the privilege to come down here
and meet with you all. I do think I could find
something I'd rather be doing than meeting
here  but..  I want to add to something that
Charlie said a minute ago on this maze of 400-
and-some pages of stuff just dealing with this--
because that doesn't take into consideration
OHSA requirements, requirements of the
Department  of  Health  Administration,
                                                                           Florida  11

           migrant  requirements, state environmental
           requirements dealing with the restricted type
           registrations, and the Right-to-Know (and you
           could stack them up out here and the books
           would be way above this podium)—that people
           in agriculture are  responsible  for  knowing
           everything! And the human mind actually can
           really just go so  far  and  this is really just
           pushing it.
               Ms. Goldman, could you tell me how may
           people were injured last year by pesticides in
           this country?

               Dr. Lynn Goldman: Our latest estimates
           for the number of people who have had
           pesticide-related illnesses are not from last
           year.  They're from several years back from
           when we did the standard. And, correct me if
           I'm wrong, Cathy and Kevin, but I think that
           the number for people actually becoming ill
           was something like 10,000 people.  But last
           year, we're hopeful, it was far fewer than that
           because the standard  was  going  into place.
           One of the things  that we are doing, not in
           Florida but in some  other states, we have what
           we call surveillance going on, to actually count
           how may illnesses  there are and see if the
           numbers are going down. There's some states
           that have  tracked them   over  the years.
           Unfortunately, in Florida, we have not tracked

              Tommy Smith:  Do you know how many
           people might have been killed?

              Dr.  Lynn Goldman: The  numbers  of
           deaths that we had on record in the '80s have
never been  more than something like 10 a

    Tommy Smith: Well, actually what I'm
trying to get to—I'm not trying to pick on you
at all—but there were in excess of 50,000 killed
in  automobiles.  It's been said that over
400,000 were killed on the highways.  Now we
haven't stopped driving automobiles and we
haven't stopped smoking cigarettes.

    Dr. Lynn  Goldman:  I  should say  that
although  we  haven't  stopped   driving
automobiles, we have done a lot of things to
make the highways safer and the cars safer and
I don't think  that we're  saying,  stop using
pesticides.  We're trying to make the use of
pesticides safer in a very cost-effective away.
And I think part of what we're here tonight to
talk about is that we want to do this for the
good of public health but we want to do this
in the way that uses common sense and that is

    Tommy Smith: All right; let me say first of
all,  that I am a  consumer  as much as I am a
farmer.  I don't  know why the American
Medical Association could encourage people
to eat fresh  fruits and vegetables if all we're
doing is poisoning the people.  My feelings
towards these  regulations—and  I do not say
for one minute we should not have some
controls on how these things are used—but I
feel that you've got an overkill situation on it.
These    regulations    are    cumbersome,
burdensome, unrealistic, impossible to comply
with. I had two people yesterday, that are not
active in  using  these materials, tell me that
12  Florida

they could go through that book and they
could  come to my farm and they  could
penalize me for something.  Now laws like
that should  not be on  the  books  if it's
impossible for me to comply  with it  and I
have people telling me that they could come
in and find things wrong. I mean, no tractor
manufacturer in this world makes a tractor cab
that will comply with the requirements.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: What I  can  say is
specifically  for  pesticide regulations, the
Worker Protection Standards, is that if there
are aspects that you simply can't comply with,
those specifics, those particulars, that's what
we need to hear, that's why we're here because
that doesn't make  sense.  I agree with you.
We cannot have a regulation on  the books
that you simply cannot comply with, so  if you
•want to write it down that would be very

    Tommy Smith: Well, there's no need in a
group of laws making criminals  out of people
who are basically honest and quite proud of it.
And that's my biggest concern. I look at re-
entry intervals that absolutely make no sense
because there's no scientific data available that
states that this level of [Inaudible]...is at such
a point after 24  hours after use but therein
you have a 48-hour re-entry. Scientific data is
what we need. Thank you.

    Bert McKee: I just generally would like to
make some observations that I made during
my [Inaudible]... and preface  that with my
qualifications  for   having    made   those
observations. I spent 13 years as the Deputy
Chief, Hazards Materials and Manager, in this
county. During that time I wore a patch that
said Emergency Medical Technician and I was
also  a  volunteer fire-fighter for this county.
At no  time during that time did I transport
someone  that  had   been poisoned  with
pesticides.  During this time, I also served as
the  Chairman for the  Local  Emergency
Planning Committee for these five counties.
I also  served this state as a member of the
State Emergency Response Commission and
I'm able to review data of chemical releases
that occur in the state.  For the  last six and
one-half years, I have worked with farms and
farmers, not only in Florida but across most
of the states.   I  have conducted  training
sessions for 20 years  teaching people from
pre-school   ages  to   senior   citizens—all
languages and all nationalities.  These were
fire-fighters, professionals,  farmers,  nursery
workers, and I've come to the conclusion that
the people in Florida are doing a real good job
at trying to implement this law.  Apparently
there are some laws that haven't worked out
but  I would  like to  say that the American
farmer does find a way to do this. You'll find
poster boards when you go out, central poster
boards that are excellent, and  some of those
have been in  place way before the  Worker
Protection Standard ever started because they
had OSHA posters, and migrant posters, and
other posters out there.   I  would like  to
encourage growers  to continue doing the
good job that they have, but keep in mind that
slips and falls on the farms are the ways the
people  many  times are going to get hurt.
Tractor injuries, forklifts, general safety dealing
with lightning and other  issues—there are
                                                                           Florida  13

           many things out there that  can influence
           worker comp rates. And, while I think we've
           looked at pesticides as a way that a person can
           be injured, there are certainly many things on
           a farm that we need to address anyway to
           make protective and safer.

              James Yowell;  I'd like to  thank you for
           the opportunity to speak to you. I represent
           Griffin   Corporation  and  tonight  I'm
           representing two of my major competitors. If
           this is a "consortium," then the three of us are
           consorting. [Laughter]
              The Worker Protection Standard requires
           all copper hydroxide products, regardless of
           toxicity, to have a 48-hour restricted REI.
           The  48-hour interval  is  unnecessary and
           unjustified given the safety characteristics of
           copper hydroxide and its long history of use
           in the fields  of Florida.   We know  of  no
           incident ever occurring in Florida with skin
           irritation of any kind.  It is our understanding
           that EPA based this 48-hour re-entry interval
           on California incident monitoring data instead
           of the  toxicity  data that companies are
           required to supply. EPA has  ample toxicity
           data  and we've had experts review this data,
           and we've had experts outside EPA  review
           this  data  showing that all of the copper
           compounds   are    basically    identical
           toxicologically. And yet the different forms of
           copper have REIs from 12 hours to 24 hours
           to 48 hours. It makes no sense. There are a
           number of other coppers being used—copper
           oxychloride,  copper  count-N, and tribasic
           copper—all replacing copper hydroxide in the
           field. They all have a 24 hour re-entry interval
           and copper hydroxide has 48. These farmers
 have to get in to their fields.  They can't wait
 48 hours to pick their tomatoes, to stake their
 tomatoes, to tie their tomatoes and their other
 vegetables.  EPA should be more even-
 handed in instituting these REIs.
     In addition to that, these other copper
 compounds, such as oxychloride, require a
 larger amount  of copper per  acre  to  be
 effective—more applications, and they're more
 water-soluble and less effective than copper
 hydroxide products.  So you're creating an
 environmental  loading  of more  coppers.
 Copper hydroxide is a necessary tool in the
 production of millions of crops grown here in
 Florida.   EPA  should  reduce  the copper
 hydroxide  REI  to that of  other copper
 compounds so  the growers can choose the
1 most efficient management tool based on field
 conditions and not on an arbitrary REI.  We
 feel that the REI for copper...and there's a
 proposal before the  Agency for all copper
 products to be  24 hours until the data is
 complete from the task force.  Industry has
 put  lots  of  money  forward  and we're
 producing  a  lot of data for the Agency
 including field worker safety data.  That data is
 18  months away and we have  two more
 growing seasons to go before that data shows
 up. The market is switching to less efficient
 coppers  and  less  environmentally-sound
 coppers. My company in particular makes all
 of these so we sell one or we sell the other,
 but it just makes no  sense  to use  a  less
 efficient product. We would prefer to market
 the best product to  the grower.   Griffin
 Corporation,   Agtrol   Corporation,   and
 Cuproquim   Corporation—three    biggest
 manufacturers in the country—and the Florida
14  Florida

Fruit and Vegetable Association have offered
to  meet at EPA with Bill Jordan who is
currently working on our requests. It's been
at the Agency for over a year. This matter
needs to be resolved. We'll be coming up on
another growing season and we're going to
have much less efficient coppers going out,
we're going to have more  copper in the
environment than is necessary, and we'd like
to see EPA take a reasonable stance  here—
issue us an interim 24-hour REI for all copper
products pending the completion  of the data
from the copper task force.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: I thought that the
application that we had was for a 4-hour REI?

    James Yowell: No, we had submitted two
applications.  Before the 4-hour application
came out, we had  requested that the Agency
review the toxicity data.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: I'm sorry, I'm not
really  up-to-date  with  this  but   my
understanding was that it was for a 4-hour
REI, that we did review the data, and that we
had some  concern about  eye  and  skin
irritation for the 4-hour REIs. This is the first
time I've  heard about this request for an
interim 24-hour REI, but we will certainly
look at that and ask people to look at that
quickly because I think that this is an equity
issue. But as I said before, this is the first time
that I have been aware that we were asked for
this interim.

   James  Yowell: The interim  REI was
requested this week from Bill Jordan. Over a
year ago, before the 4-hour notice came out
on EPA, we had asked the Agency to look at
the data.  We had been requesting the Agency
to look at the data and set a fair REI for this
product, or reduce it.  The specific 24-hour,
we feel, is a good compromise. I think when
the data comes out you're going to have less
than that justified.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: We will look at that.
It does make sense.

   James Yowell: But I think we need a level
playing field on compounds that have equal
toxicity. They all need to be at least the same
so they can choose the chemical not based on
the REI.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: The others are 24

   James Yowell: Copper oxide is 12 hours.
A number of them are 24 hours. Hydroxide
is the only one that's 48. It's the most used
pesticide in the copper line and the reason it's
the most used is it's the best one.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: We will look at that.
We sure appreciate that.

   James Yowell: Thank you.

   Chip Hinton:  My name is Chip Hinton
and I'm Executive Director of the Florida
Strawberry Growers Association, and unlike
many of the specialists that you had the honor
of hearing earlier, I am a generalist.   Our
entire membership is enrolled in the Florida
                                                                         Florida  15

           Fruit and Vegetable Association.  And since
           Charlie Matthews was making his statements
           with  a lot of input  from  the  Florida
           Strawberry Growers Association, I'll limit my
           technical  presentation   to  some  brief
           comments that will be followed with a written
           record of this presentation.
              There are a couple of things I would like
           to say. First of all, we rely heavily on others to
           assist us in doing what is right. We have one
           reason we are here: to make sure we have a
           safe work-place for our workers. We want to
           do that and at the same time we want to
           produce safe, nutritious food. We have relied
           very heavily on people like  Norm, who has
           done an excellent job at educating; people like
           Steve, who has done an excellent job—with a
           fair  and   expeditious  manner—with   the
           implementation of this particular program.
           We've heard some frustrations and I won't say
           that we're exempt  from them. But I think
           that this and the myriad of other convoluted
           issues and problems  are not as difficult as
           some others. There's some concerns  that this
           will be a foot in the door and that this will be
           a continuing process soon in other areas
           where it becomes "the tail wagging the dog."
           There are  additional programs, additional
           problems, additional time, additional costs that
           are not based on science that have occurred—
           some  of those concerns...
              And I want to  thank you for being here
           tonight.  It's a very good sign—the fact  that
           you are here, that you are listening, and  that
           we are here for the same reasons. There are a'
           couple  of things  that we'd  like  to  say.
           Number one, a few years ago we received a
           request  from the state Department of Safety
to inspect our strawberry industry as relates to
their activities and they requested a training
session  with us.   Because I knew  of our
record, I asked them if in fact they would not
be better served if they choose someone with
a lot more problems in the safety area. Based
on  the  workers  comp  information  we
provided them, they agreed with me and went
to another commodity area.
    Based upon  our workers compensation
for the  past five years,  our workers comp
payback was averaging less than 4%. We have
one of the lowest  areas  of  incidents  or
problems of any work  force  of  any  type.
There are several reasons for that. One is that
the strawberry industry is one of the last "ma
and pa" operations that you're going to find.
Our average farm size is 19 acres. I have two
people tonight with me (we're right in the
middle of our production and it's difficult to
break people  away  to  get here)  but my
president and vice president are here.  My
President, Mike Watt, if you were to stumble
off of his back steps, you'd probably hit a rain
bird. My Vice President is Billy Simmons, if
you go 64 feet out his front door you're going
to be in the second row of the strawberries.
Our workers live with us, live out the back
door. Our kids play together. We are in that
same environment that we're talking about.
We are typically the person who's doing all the
mixing, loading, spraying. Who's the owner?
He's our grower. We want to make sure that
everything  is   done  right  according  to
specifications and we are extremely concerned
about that.
    I want to thank you for this opportunity.
I'd  like  to thank you also for  the time that
16  Florida

 you're going to be taking tomorrow to see
 where it stands on the situation and I look
 forward to that opportunity. Thank you.

    Baldemar   Velazquez:   My  name  is
 Baldemar Velazquez, I'm President  of the
 Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOG).
 Although we're a union in the State of...By the
 way, I walked onto the Spring training site of
 the great Cleveland Indians!  [Laughter]  Had
 to get that in, it's my team! Although we're a
 union from Ohio,  the workers  that we
 represent, the majority of them migrate back
 to Florida during the winter time and are
 employed with the various crops throughout
 the  state  of Florida—strawberries,  citrus,
 vegetables, and the like.
    If s surprising to me that I'm hearing some
 of the comments that's been made  by the
 speakers before me,  that  I'm  sitting  here
 agreeing with these guys. It's very interesting.
 You see, we represent, I think, now close to
 6,000 workers  under  collective bargaining
 agreements  in   the  States  of  Ohio  and
 Michigan  on about 125  individual  family
 farms.    These  are  collective  bargaining
 agreements  where  we have engaged  the
 exclusive buyers of the crop—the big food
 companies like Campbell's Soup,  Heinz USA,
 Aunt Jane, Green Bay Foods, Dean  Foods
 Corporation—to  sit at a bargaining table with
 us and with the "ma and pa" growers who
grow the pickling cucumbers, tomatoes, and
 the like.  And  what we learned from this
 experience is that a lot of the questions in
terms of farmworkers' safety that we're seeing
now,  because we're trying  to  administrer
agreements  and we're  trying to  make
 production work for the benefit not only of
 the growers and the companies but for the
 benefit of our people—because  the  more
 productive our people are, the more money
 we make—and we're coming up against some
 of the "irregulations" that are  overburden-
 some to the small operators on the farm. So
 we're finding ways in which to elaborate and
 overcome  some of these issues in  training
 workers on the Worker Protection Standard.
    EPA needs to hear  from  us  how  to
 resolve some  of these problems—instead of
 somebody thinking up in Washington, "Well,
 how can we fix it, we'll just make up this law
 and tell these guys to do  it." Then when you
 try to implement it, you figure out it doesn't
 work, because agriculture is different all over
 the country. In Ohio it's like here: a lot of the
 people who are the driving initiators of an
 industry aren't the growers. I mean these are
 the big food processing companies—the fruit,
 oranges, big multinational corporations—and
 they're partially invested in this and  partially
 invested in  many other things.
   So what I'm getting at is  that there is a
 great dysfunction within the industry  because
 there is not the negotiating collaboration. I
 think the negotiating rule-making that began
 10 years ago which we were part of (I was in
 those meetings) didn't work because there was
 no collaboration, there was no meeting of the
 minds, there was no forum for people within
 that industry to sit down at one table and try
 to sort out what could be done and what was
 realistic and what wasn't.  Because all of us
have the same  desire to see a healthy, vibrant
industry that we make a living in. Whether it's
the corporations, whether it's the growers, or
                                                                          Florida  17

          whether it's the farmworkers, we all want to
          support [Inaudible]... That's really the bottom
              Now I found some of the areas in which
          EPA can focus on (and  I'm part of the
          National Environmental Justice  Advisory
          Council and I'm the Chair of the International
          Subcommittee)... The thing that interests me
          more on how to  support industry in this
          country  is,  are  you  applying  the same
          standards that you're applying to the growers
          in the industry in  this country to make the
          environment  safe  for  our  people,  to
          competing fruit  that  comes  from other
          countries. You know because of NAFTA and
          free trade that maybe you're tearing down the
          tariffs for tomatoes,  for  citrus,  and for
          everything else. But are you requiring them to
          have the same Worker Protection Standard in
          their country as you're  requiring from us~
          because  that involves cost, that involves an
          advancement, that involves a whole lot of
          things? And, I'm going to be pushing through
          NEJAC, through that council, to make sure
          that EPA does something incollaboration with
          USDA,  with  DOL, with  the  integrated
          government bodies,to be able to do that to
          make our growers competitive here.
              I find it interesting that I'm defending
          these growers because, hey, this is where our
          people come and make a living and we've got
          to keep the work site whole so it becomes a
          job security issue for us. So if our jobs are
          being threatened by competition overseas or
          other  places—which  these  same  food
          companies buy all over the world.  You take a
          corporation like Campbell's Soup—well, they
          buy tomatoes in Brazil, in Mexico, they have
their operations in Europe. I mean in today's
transportation system, fruit is moved around
the world like nothing.  And I'm telling you
that EPA has got to focus  its attention on
seeing how whole industries are  integrated-
whether it's oranges, whether it's tomatoes-
you got to break it down little by little, crop by
crop, product by product and see where you
make the  best  influence  at keeping this
industry whole.
    The one last recommendation I want to
make is what I touched on in terms of EPA
integrating with the Department of Labor, the
Department of Agriculture,  in terms of the
concerns that overlap.   There has to be a
collective effort so that these rules don't fall all
over  each  other.   There  are  among the
growers, those 120-some growers  that we
represent the workers on those farms—many
of those small growers have problems meeting
all of the standards of all the regulations that
have  come down combined on a  particular
farm. There is no grower in Ohio that is not
in violation of some regulation.  And if the
force would  be 100 percent implemented,
everyone  of  our farmers would be in jail!
Which is a ridiculous thought. So we have to
do something to keep out EPA, USDA, and
come to some kind of forum to see what can
be massaged in that situation to create the
dialogue that needs to take place on the
ground between workers, between growers, to
offer up some solutions to some  of these real
    Thank you very much. Oh, incidentally, I
got some cards, if any of you guys would like
to talk to me at some point down  the road, I'd
18  Florida

 really like to  talk to some of you guys!
 [Laughter and applause]

    Fernando Cuevas: My name is Fernando
 Cuevas  from  the  Farm  Labor  United
 Committee.   I'm  the  First Vice President,
 National FLOG, but I live here in Florida.
 I've been calling Florida my home state for 33
 years but I migrate every summer with the
 workers to Ohio, to  Michigan, to North
 Carolina, wherever we need to go for my work
 as an organizer. I want to be able to be active
 with  these regulations,  directly with  the
 workers but with no interferences  from the
 workers or the growers. It seems to me that
 every time there is an accident out in  the
 fields, the  workers call upon myself or my
 staff and the growers get angry. I don't think
 you should get angry. I  think that you should
 be cooperative  to see how we can work
 together resolving the accident that happened.
 Most of the time it is not intentional but it's
 an accident and the  workers are always in fear
 of what to do. And one of the main reasons
 they're  in  fear  is  they don't know what's
 happening to them, they don't  understand
what's happening to them.
    A perfect example was in 1989, in the
 Goodsome Farm, an accident that happened
here in Baalm, Florida. It was sad when I
interviewed some of those workers and them
telling me that they  thought they were getting
sick because of the breakfast they had that
morning.   They  kept working  until they
dropped. Other ones, because they had just
peeled an orange and started eating it, that's
why they thought  they were feeling dizzy,
nausea, and almost ready to drop.  And on
 and on, more stories that they told me.  I
 went there because the workers called me the
 night after the incident.  The same night that
 they called me, I heard  it from the workers
 that called me and I heard it from the media,
 but I didn't hear anybody else trying to be
 concerned about what to  do for those
 wprkers.  Fortunately, the week before,  the
 Farm Labor Organizing Committee had put a
 tour to bring Dr. Marion Moses to give some
 orientation and training to the committee staff
 to  be  able to deal with incidents  like that.
 Otherwise, I don't know what would have
 happened if the local  doctors and nurses
 didn't   know   the   symptoms   of  OP
 [organophosphate] poisoning and what to do
 to handle a severe incident and accident like
 that. All of them ended up in intensive care.
 Some of them are still permanently damaged.
 But again, I don't see enough involvement in
 looking out for those folks and seeing how
 they can be helped.
    Of that incident  that happened, for the
 first time I can say there's some data about it
 (because when I first presented in 1986 on the
 rule-making, the first thing that everybody
 used to tell me on any panel was, "Fernando,
where's the data?"1).  Well, there's some data
 there—1989 incident on the Goodsome Farm
in Baalm, Florida—but what is being done by
EPA or the industries to help those workers
that are affected permanently because of that
accident? We have to start paying attention to
that so that all growers or all industries in the
state don't get the finger pointed that they're
all bad. They're not all bad. There's just a few
that are  delinquent  and not facing  the
                                                                          Florida  19

          responsibilities of the problems that create
          accidents like that.
              We need to work jointly to take care of
          the accidents, to see to the needs of those
          workers that got affected and damaged from
          those kind of accidents. They'll be damaged
          for the rest of their lives and some of them do
          not understand why they got damaged because
          they never got explained that those medidnas
          [medicines] that they're putting in the crops
          are very dangerous, very toxic, and you should
          stay away from them.  They should explain to
          them, it's better for everybody. If you have a
          gun loaded, laying around, you're going to tell
          somebody,  "Don't touch that gun because
          that bullet can go off." Well, don't touch that
          field  of pesticides because  that bullet of a
          chemical is going to go off.  And that's what
          we need to tell those workers before they
          enter into the field.
              I would appreciate if we can work together
          in  making sure that all of those workers are
          well aware of the dangers when there are toxic
          chemicals used on any crop  in the state.  We
          are from the state and we are the ones who
          harvest the crops so we should be also  the
          ones that know what that label says.  Not only
          the ones that mix it and apply it but also the
          ones that harvest the fruit should also be
          aware of what that label says, of when it's re-
          entry time or when it's safe to go in there, or
          if we need protective clothing or  not.  We
          should be told that.  And we're more than
          happy to facilitate and make sure, you let us
          know and we'll communicate it to the workers
          if for some reason you're not doing it.   We
          want to do that.
   The other thing is that I got firsthand
experience in participating in some of the so-
called trainings that are being done because of
this  1995  regulation  that  says  that  all
farmworkers should be trained before they go
into  the work site. It's a joke.  To me, it's a
joke, some of those "trainings."  They do it in
15 minutes, rushing through there and flipping
the chart at the same time. I grant you, they
are  doing  it  in Spanish, but  Castilliano
Espanol, and we don't understand a lot of the
words  that they're using because it's not
typical Spanish that we speak out in the fields,
it's Castillian.  That means it's the kind of
language that we don't even know what they're
talking about, a lot of those words.  And the
other thing is that while they're flipping that
chart  and throwing  it  out  in  Spanish,
somebody  else  is over there bothering me:
"What's  your name, what's your address,
where  did you come from?" So how can I
pay attention in a 15-minute session? I could
go on and on but she stood up, so thank you
very much.

   Kevin Morgan: As I mentioned before, I
do appreciate the opportunity  for you all to
come down and hear what we have to say.
My name is Kevin Morgan and I represent the
Florida Farm Bureau Federation. We are a
membership   organization  with   110,000
families here in the state of Florida. This is a
problem  for  a  large  portion  of  that
membership.  During the 12 years that I've
been with Farm Bureau, few of the rules have
caused the magnitude of problems that this
one  regulation has.  Most of the  people that
know me would say that I'm a pretty positive

20   Florida

person, but when I sat down and tried to
follow your guidelines on implementation of
the thing,  I really had problems  finding
something positive with it because there's not
a lot of positives to this Worker Protection
Standard. I will say that the goal of protection
for workers, for farm families, is quite noble,
but as someone said, I think we had that
before,  before these  standards  came into
   As   you   well   know—on  to   the
implementation    part—when   everything
happened, when the changes were made back
in '95, there was not material available. It was
quite a while before anything drifted down. I
know we worked with Marion, we worked
with Norm, we worked with EPA trying to
develop some materials. The Farm Bureau
was instrumental in coming up  with some
things that  I think helped.  They didn't do as
much we would have liked to but we did have
some success with a record book, we had
some  success  with   citrus  duties  and
responsibilities  forms.   We  worked on  a
•worker protection compliance kit and tried to
disburse a  few of them and it's gone a long
way. And I think that you •would have to say
by the number of inspections that have been
done  in this state recently (we learned that
back  in June, I  think)—the Department of
Agriculture completed a two and a half month
check where Dale and them did, I think, 500-
some inspections—there were  almost 200
partial non-compliance areas.  Of those, 100
of them were just basic  "signage" problems
and real small things that were easily corrected
within a day or two. This is an excellent... the
farmers have  done an  outstanding job in
trying to comply with a very, very difficult
standard. But even though they've done this,
there's still some problems here.
    One positive that I did see in the way
things are being done here in Florida is I'm
glad of the enforcement system that has been
put in place.  In other words, I don't think
that agencies that are seeking compliance, they
shouldn't become addicted to a system that's
built around the immediate ladling of expenses
or  excessive  monetary penalties  for  non-
compliance. These agencies that issue these
types of high fines sometimes find themselves
in the position of negotiating the amounts of
settlements with the full knowledge that the
penalized parties are going to be  apt to settle
because those same penalties are a lot cheaper
than going to court. And this current system
is working much better than that and I'm glad
that's the one that you all used.
    Even though the farmers are making this
great  effort  to  comply,  they're not  in
compliance yet.  They still have a long way to
go and it has been said that maybe they can't—
there are some things in this standard that you
just cannot comply with. The complexity of
the standard has  already been mentioned—the
141 pages, the 85, and you know,  I hear that
every day! But when you want to get to the
real problem of it, you take that tremendous
volume of literature and then you mesh it with
about 200 different crops we grow here in
Florida, and  each  of those  crops  has  a
different chemical and a management practice
that go  along with  it, when you  try to  mesh
those requirements with those crops, then you
got a lot more problems added on to it.  Then
you go to the OSHA requirements and on and
                                                                          Florida  21

           on and on.  And although this is [just] one
           thing, it's a lot. One of our real fears—and to
           my knowledge this hasn't happened yet, but it
           is a big concern of ours—is that the inability of
           every farmer to comply with every aspect of
           the Worker Protection Standard could provide
           advocates with technicalities  that could  be
           used to launch legal battles against growers.
           And in  doing so it would make attorneys
           become  the actual  enforcement arm of the
           Worker  Protection Standard,  and  that's
           something I don't think you intended to  do
           and that's something that I don't think we can
           live with. Thank you.

              Monty Knox: Good evening.  Thanks for
           allowing me  to  speak and thank you for
           coming down here.  My name is Monty Knox,
           I am a greenhouse grower in the Orlando,
           Florida area.  I've  got 300,000  square foot
           under irrigation.
              The Worker Protection Standard is a good
           thing. It has brought the growers kicking and
           screaming into the late twentieth century.
           Thank you, we needed you! But, there are a
           few things that the greenhouse is really having
           a tremendous problem with.  One of the
           major ones is the re-entry periods for non-
           pesticide nursery chemicals—things that are
           not toxic.  The re-entry period for the non-
           pesticide nursery chemicals such as growth
           regulators is basically my major problem in the
           nursery, the total 24-hour re-entry period for
           chemicals that, after drying, the  only way to
           get a negative reaction would be to ingest it by
           mouth, or stick it in your eye,  or stick in your
           nose, or cut yourself and stick it on your skin
           for a few minutes. These things, if we saw
 someone  doing that,  they  wouldn't  be
 employed  very long.  And we  don't have
 people doing that.
    Unfortunately, one of the side effects of
 the overly stringent  REIs is something  I'm
 sure no one ever thought of, but here in
 Florida it has reduced our spray times to after
 3:00 on Friday afternoons when it cools off
 here in the State of Florida to  (during the
 summer) 8:00—that's five hours. And we get
 from sunup  till  about 10:30 or 11:00 on a
 Saturday morning because of the 48 hours,
 sometimes the 24 hours. And unfortunately,
 one of the things that could possibly happen
 (and I have seen happen in other nurseries) is
 that they're doing all of their spraying in that
 period  of time, and if they're  not careful
 they're going create a toxic cocktail—not in the
 spray release but in the actual greenhouse,
 because the previous chemical  that has been
 sprayed could still be wet.  And  there are
 some fungicides that cannot  go out on a
 spreader/mixer and  if it hits that plant it's
 going to burn it.
    One of the other things that came up, as
•'soon as  we  got  the  Worker Protection
 Standards, I  handed them to  our attorneys
 and I said, "What is  this going to do to our
 hiring practices?" Because one of the codicils
 in there is that we must communicate with our
 employees and if we don't, we are liable for
 any accidents. Well, I don't speak Korean, I
 don't speak Creole.  I'm lucky enough to have
 a grower who does speak Creole but how can
 I communicate with a person who doesn't
 speak English?  I could have signs in every
 language   on  the   face  of  the   earth.
 Unfortunately, it has really cramped my ability
22  Florida

 to hire immigrants.  You know, it came down
 to, "Who do we want to face?" Do we want
 to face the  EPA for  Worker  Protection
 Standards or do  we  want to  face the
 Department  of Justice?   I appreciate the
 opportunity to talk. Thank you.

    Steve Rogers:  I would like to welcome the
 panel here to central Florida.  We've had some
 great weather and it's nice to  be able to
 participate in meetings  like this when the
 weather is nice,  too.    My name  is Steve
 Rogers and I wear three hats in the agricultural
 industry: I'm a grower, I'm a crop consultant,
 and I'm a scientist.  I work in all of the areas
 of harvesting and production with my family,
 and I have been for about eight years or so, so
 I'm familiar  with the practical  aspects of
 dealing with the WPS logistics.  I'm also on
 the research staff at the University of Florida
 where my publications and research are in the
 area of micro encapsulation. So I also have
 my hand in the academic aspects of all this.
    But I'm primarily talking today as a crop
 consultant.  I handed  out to you a recent
 reprint  of an  article on plant disease which
 describes the role of crop consultants  in the
 agricultural industry.  Certainly there  aren't
 very many  details  to  the  aspects  of  our
 business, but our goal is  to work with both
 producers and workers in helping the world
 sustain a safer but  affordable food supply.
When  the Administration  and the United
 States Department of Agriculture approved
the National IPM Initiative, we found that was
a very positive thing in our industry. The key
to helping the world  sustain these goods
through food  supply  is  IPM, and  for the
 benefit  of  the people  who  might  not
 understand the acronym, IPM is integrated
 pest management. The brief definition is: you
 use pesticides only when they're needed. As a
 crop consultant, I'm often called out to review
 agricultural producers' production operations
 and,   critically, the  decision  process  is
 [Inaudible]... to use pesticides in the first place.
 I think we would all agree that the best way to
 reduce pesticide exposure  is to  not use
 pesticides in the first place.   But what we're
 finding is that when growers are tied down
 with  regulatory and administrative  issues,
 they're being pulled out of the field. And if
 you look on page 8 of my reprint,  the core
 foundation of a sound IPM decision process
 is the survey—what's  going on out there in the
 crops, you got to know.  What's happening is
 that this survey is suffering because growers
 are in their offices managing paper work. And
 my point is this: as you deal with the logistics
 of a WPS, please consider the IPM process
 and please understand that farmers have to be
 out in the fields a good part of the day to
 make the  right IPM decisions. Thank you
 very much.

    Pat MacMartin:  Thank you. I appreciate
 the opportunity to  speak this evening.  A
 couple of the items that were listed or that
 you wanted some input on: implementation
 and how local and government agencies have
 helped. The local county extension offices
 throughout the state should be commended
 for their assistance in helping growers get
 education about this WPS.  Also, Dr. Norm
Nesheim here probably helped more people
than any other single  individual in the industry
                                                                           Florida   23

          in spreading information about the law.  Of
          course, the interpretations of the law have
          been very diverse.  For example, one of the
          best questions I ever hear is, "Where's the
          entrance to a grove?" The implementation of
          this law has been accomplished through trial
          and error.  Training is  done mostly (from
          what  I understand)  through the  use of
          [Inaudible]... First, we thought we were going
          to do it with flip charts and the flip charts
          kind of flopped. The posting requirements
          are being done in the  barns, in the crew
          leader's van, and this type of thing.
             The most difficult aspect in my opinion is
          the   decontamination  of  supplies  and
          maintaining that day-to-day—you know, where
          is your soap and where your paper towels are
          -they tend to disappear, the water frequently
          you'll find stale in the containers that you put
          it in.  So that's something that's just a daily
          maintenance  that's hard to keep  up with,
          especially when you're talking about a 30-day
          period in a field or in a grove.
              Back  to  the training real quick.  The
          documentation of who's  been  trained for
          employers in agriculture who have a stable
          work force is not that big of an issue because
          you document that they're trained once every
          five years and you're  pretty much done.
          Although you repeat that once a year again,
          the    same   thing   for    your   hazard
          communications, for the Right-to-Know law
          and under the DAGS you do it every time you
          apply a pesticide because, of course, the label
          is the law. The other side of the coin is when
          you have transient or migrant labor, I  think
          what you'll find the majority of the time is that
           the employers, or the growers, the owners, are
relying on the crew leaders or the contract
labor  foremen  to  supply  them  with
documentation that the employees have been
trained. Therefore, I think a lot of emphasis
needs  to be placed on the migrant  labor
contractors to ensure that they are complying
with their end of this law and not  relying on
the growers to do that because the growers
are relying on them to that.
    Also, as far as  notification as to when
applications are made, I don't think that that's
a big issue because I feel  that that's what's
being done anyway.  So that's just putting in
writing that you will tell people when you've
•been spraying, you know, that's part of the law
I think has always been met.
    The  re-entry periods  (as  you've  heard
many  times and I've heard) are way out  of
line. They're just not reasonable.  Thank you
very much.

    Jim Hinkle: Good evening. My name is
Jim Hinkle.   I'm the Safety Director for a
family-owned citrus organization  in central
Florida, in Highlandstown.  I was  also asked
tonight to  represent the Highlands County
Citrus Growers Association which has over
 100 growers in it. I can't say, in fact I can't say
it as well Charlie, Terry, Tommy, and the rest
of them have, the problems...! know this, I've
heard  them from day one...I did write a letter
 so I don't even want to go over the re-entries
 and so forth.  I would like to say a couple of
 things, though. I'm a positive person also, and
 a bright spot  in this, and just to show that it
 can be done, I believe I was the  first  or the
 second  company  inspected  in  Highlands
 County.  I don't know why  small growers
24 Florida

usually draw people to them.  Elaine was
there,  spent an hour, and left with  zero
problems found. And I feel that it should be
noted that it can be done. The problem is not
every organization is fortunate enough to  have
a person hired as a full-time safety director
and  I can tell you that as a person in that
position, I do spend a lot time.  It is a full-
time job just trying to comply with all the  rules
on what can and can't be done.
   I would  like to note, specifically,  the
harvesting  part.  I  think training  our  own
employees, our own handlers, and so forth
has never been a problem. Our own central
posting and all that has never been a problem.
But it's an absolute nightmare when it comes
to the harvesting.  We have groves in three
counties that stretch (I'm guessing) 120 miles,
100 miles. We don't have the crews that come
to our barn everyday from without, or from
another county or something.  The central
posting area is a real problem. I've even gone
so far as to put them on the bathrooms.  I
figure  everybody's  going  to go  by there.
That's where I put my central posting.   I'm
not sure if that's even legal, which brings up a
point: I don't know, except  for it says  "any
central position," that it really says where to
put the central posting, so that's where I put
   The other  area I had a little  problem
understanding is decontamination.  I've  seen
people with five-gallon buckets and two-quart
containers, and bring paper towels, and  a
partridge in a pear tree and all that, just the
bare necessities. And I've seen people  with
$150.00 five-gallon containers with all kinds of
stuff put in the middle of them and so forth.
I'd like to see somebody really specify...!
mean, we know the amount, we know the
water amount, but when you're talking about
several people and so many gallons a person,
I don't think anybody's really visualizing where
you put that, or how you put that. I would
like to see a little more emphasis put on the
decontamination area.
   The only other thing that I really had a
question about was the cost involved.  Is it
five minutes already?  Well, maybe I  should
run for politics, I thought this was a tough
job.  [Laughter]  The cost: A lot of  people
can't  afford it. I mean, we spent $7000 on
computers,  computer  programs,  videos,
everything, I  mean  everything,  decontam-
ination kits. And I don't know whether every
organization can afford to spend $7,000. So
I'd like to see  maybe some help in that area.
Thanks again for coming.  I wish that there
were  more people from Highlands County
here.  Thank you.

   Silvester Rodriguez: My name is Silvester
Rodriguez.  I'm what they call here in Florida
a  crew leader, a citrus crew  leader.   My
problem is not pesticides, or any other thing
like that.  With the crew leaders, the problem
is faulty equipment. The company that I work
for has a lot of faulty equipment.  It's a lot like
pesticides,  you know, a lot  of smoke—you
know  what they  call  in  citrus the "fruit
loader."  This  company I work for has got a
lot of problems with its equipment and it's
killing me.  It's a lot of smoke from the pipes
and it's not any help not to stop all day when
I'm out there driving that thing.  Now,  how
come we don't get any protection  or we don't
                                                                           Florida  25

           get any help from the EPA when it comes to
           that?  I really wish we would for the future.
           But that's about all I got to say.  I wish we
           could get some kind of help. A lot of people
           they just don't want to talk about that, they
           just don't want to worry about it. I do. That's
           about all I got to say.  I wish we could get
           some action  on this matter.  Thanks a lot.

              Israel Baez: Good evening.  First of all, I'd
           like to welcome you all to central Florida.  I'm
           out of south  Florida.  The weather's been a
           little bit prettier than in south Florida.  I'm
           Israel Baez and I'm manager of labor relations
           for  Duda   and  Sons,  a   family-owned
           agricultural company that probably employs
           over 3,000 seasonal employees to cultivate,
           not just cultivate, to harvest our vegetable and
           citrus crops.  And like Mr. Velazquez stated
           earlier, I think people are the main part of our
           business and the Duda family like many other
           agricultural  families have known  that,  and
           safety practices and procedures were probably
           in place prior to the WPS coming into effect
           in 1995. Realistically, with the  experience that
           I've had in the  19 years that I've been with
           Duda, we've had zero accidents that I know of
           that have been chemically-related.
              Now what has WPS done to a company
           like Duda? To me, it's given me a lot of gray
           hairs. I used to have jet black hair and a nice
           black beard and it's changed—not just WPS,
           but many of the other regulations.  But what's
           it's done is changed a lot of the focus of our
           department in Personnel Human Resources to
           become more trainers, not only with our  field
           workers, but  also with our supervisors.  It's
           been a major task for a company our size to
make sure  that we stay in compliance, not
only with in-house training, but with training
that's been provided by IFAS, FFVA, and
many  of  the  other  associations.   But,
fortunately, Duda is large enough to be able to
realize or to afford a support staff.  I'm not
just talking about myself, there's about four or
five like me—there's training directors, safety
directors, and an R&D department that's quite
large and quite expensive.  Unfortunately, the
smaller  growers don't  have  that luxury or
cannot afford it.  And to a point, I don't know
how much  longer Ed Duda and Sons will be
able to afford to  keep on paying our salaries as
a support  staff to keep up with  standard
compliance. But  we have managed to do a
good job, a fair job, primarily where worker
safety  comes into play.  Like  any other
organization, you  come through there with a
fine-tooth comb and I'm sure you're going to
find some minor  violations.  It's impossible
for anybody to be 100 percent clean. You
know, like the OSHA inspector comes in to
inspect our housing, he says, "If I'm going to
write you up because you got a little tear in
your screen and that's  the only thing I can
find wrong, they think I'm not doing my job."
    In managing the WPS, we are experiencing
some problems. The training of the workers
has not been too serious of a problem because
most of our operations are centered  at a
personnel office  in their location. We've been
fortunate enough to  not  have  a  lot of
contractors that develop a lot of monitoring
problems in making sure that the people that
work with  them  are properly  trained.  But
those contractors that we do have, they go
through services that are provided by FFVA
26  Florida

 to make sure that their people are properly
    The training of the mixer/loaders has
 been in existence for years  and we've  been
 doing that as far back as I can remember. The
 WPS was  not really needed for that—the
 safekeeping of the employees. Again, larger
 companies, larger growers have always had the
 employees'  safety in mind.  The  posting
 requirements, that's simple,  because like the
 gentleman who spoke before said, the best
 place to post any information at all in the field
 in on the portable toilets. Even though we
 have centrally located bulletin boards, we also
 post them in the "little white offices" that you
 see out in the field.
    The decontamination creates a major
 nightmare.  An example is the location where
 my  office, where my  desk is  located  in
 Belleglade, we peak out at about 800 to 1,000
 seasonal workers.  You know,  decontam-
 ination, to provide that for  that number of
 people for a 30-day period—that realistically
 has not been proven to be  needed because
 maybe an incident took place in California.
 You know, it hasn't happened. Our records
 show that.  It is a  nightmare.
   The other nightmare is required posting of
 the pesticides that  are used on a daily basis on
 the crops. I don't know how many of you all
 are familiar with vegetable crops.  Vegetable
 crops require numerous sprays. And, some
 crops are not entered by any people until
 ready to be harvested, but we have to post it.
 In  Belleglade, we  have  a  room  that's
 designated because we have so many crops—
we got radishes,  celery, all your leaf items,
 corn, sugarcane, it takes a room to put the
 required posting.
    And, oops my time's up—that's that Latin
 blood in me, I like to talk.  But one of the
 things that realistically (to cut the moment
 short) needs to be looked at and changed is
 the paper  trail that WPS has created.  The
 gentleman before spoke about the time that it
 takes supervision to do this paper work—and
 it's not only  with WPS, it's many  other
 regulations that have to do with a lot of paper
 work—that keeps them out of the fields.  The
 other  thing is  re-entry  periods.   Re-entry
 periods are a  nightmare when it comes to
 perishable  commodities  such as vegetables
 they sell in Florida where Mother Nature is
 very unpredictable and there are times when
 you have to reenter a field after a two-inch
 rain, or three days later you got to go in there
 and spray it, maybe you have to send a weed
 crew. You know, I think the practical side is
 using common sense.  And, most of the
 growers that I've dealt with in my 19 years of
 experience in agriculture do have that kind of
 common    sense...    [Taping   suspended
 momentarily]...the right to go in and keeping
 the people out when the conditions are not
 safe enough. Again, I would like to thank you
all for taking you all's time to meet with us and
I look forward to talking to you all again.

   Dr.  Marion Fuller: We're going to be
taking a short break, but before we do Lynn
Goldman would like to have the opportunity
to say a few things here first.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: I think we still have
some 20 people who are going to speak and
                                                                           Florida  27

          so I would ask all of you to stick around if you
          can. I think that this is an opportunity. What
          I'm seeing here is, not only for those of us at
          EPA and the state Agriculture Department to
          hear from all of you, but also  for some of you
          to hear from each other and hopefully some
          of the things that you're hearing are new and
          as informative to all of you as they are to us.
              There were a few specific things that I
          wanted to respond to that were raised and,
          you know, instead of waiting until the very,
          very end to respond to everything,  I thought
          I  might take this opportunity.  One is, in
          terms of what I believe the  farmers need to
          know in order to be  able to implement the
          Worker Protection Standard (and it certainly
          isn't all  of those 446 pages): I don't  have
          expectations that farmers  will have read and
          memorized all of those pages. There will not
          be a quiz at the end of this meeting on those
          pages! But you do need to understand that we
          have a tension between—I  think  we heard
          some of it here today—on the one hand,
          wanting to put in all on a page (which we have
          done, we have the one-page version) and on
          the  other hand,  a  lot of  people  (and
          sometimes even their attorneys) wanting the
          specific details.
              My approach to this is the  one-page-
          version, the core of it, and using common
          sense. We shouldn't have to write interpretive
          guidance that says, yes, you  can put it on the
          door of the bathroom  if  that's  a central
          location. Of course, being  a regulatory agency
          we could specify exactly what kind of portable
           toilet—if it's a white one,  if  it's a yellow one,
          you know we could get into infinite detail on
this.  And there may be people who have
questions like that for us.
    The interpretive guidance that we put out
was simply in response to  those kinds of
questions  that we got which are  legitimate
questions, and because many of you do have
attorneys who are going to say, "You need to
clarify this," and we do consider it our job to
do  that. But just because we've done that
doesn't mean that everybody else is obligated
to read through all of that and memorize it.
That's something that I just wanted to make
clear to all of you, that although I think it is
our job to give that clarification, it is not my
expectation that those are things that will be
read and memorized by everybody. It should
just be viewed as a tool for you—if you have a
question,  you can look it  up and  get the
answer. So if that is helpful at all—I'd hope
that it would be.
    I would say that I do think that in this
area, along with so many of the things that we
do, that it is the excessive reliance on the law
and the whole system and a lack of reliance on
common sense that has brought us to some of
the places that we are today. We do not want
to be a part of encouraging that. I think that
that has been one of the problems in our
system. The other issue that has come up that
is very much related is the issue of liability.
The question was raised by several people
that, regardless of the circumstances, even if
you don't have any control over the people
that are  using the pesticides, the  truth is
strictly,   legally,  in   the   strictest,   legal
interpretation of the law, everybody with an
interest—the owner, the contractors, and so
forth—is liable.  However, it's  also true that
28   Florida

 EPA's enforcement policy (and I know the
 philosophy of the State of Florida, because
 I've talked to these folks) is that the people
 who we are interested in are the people who
 actually have control over how the pesticide is
 used, and not only who are legally responsible,
 but are  responsible in fact.  Those are the
 people we are interested in working with to
 ensure compliance. And those are the people
 who we will be interested in also making sure
 that there is enforcement if they are failing to
 do their job, which, thank goodness, is a rarity.
    Someone  raised the issue of the  United
 States and our trading partners and on that
 issue I  think all of you  do  need to pay
 attention to that—hold our feet to the fire on
 the agreements that we have made. We made
 some  very strong agreements under the
 NAFTA. There are side agreements on labor
 and side agreements on the environment, but
 I will tell you that the way the government
 works, that if you're interested in making sure
 the side  agreements are  strictly  adhered to,
 you need  to pay  attention  to it.    The
 government does respond  to  the "squeaky
 wheel" in the system and there are those who
 would push that we not very strictly comply
 with those.  There needs to be people who are
 making sure we are accountable to them. My
 personal belief is that the GATT is  not as
 strong as it could have  been in this area.
 There are some provisions in the GATT that
 could serve as leverage but there was also  a
 commitment to move  forward in this area by
 all of the countries and that's another place
 that the United States government and other
governments are going to need to be held
 accountable  to  the  agreements that we all
 made when we completed the GATT.
 :   I heard one idea (and I realize that I'm
 jumping from topic to topic) but I heard one
 idea and I thought it was a great idea. It was
 the idea of the EPA,  the Department of
 Labor, and the USDA getting together to look
 at the regulations that we all have created—the
 standards that we have created, the paperwork
 burden that we have created for the farmers,
 and I think this is an excellent idea.  I think
 the time has come. And, I also think that this
 is an idea that the President, President Clinton
 and the Vice-President, with the reinventing
 government  initiative, would really like.  I
 guess I should say that in our second term,
 this wouldLhe a good one for us to address. It
 would be right in line with some of the other
 things that we have been doing.  We have
 been working with the Department of Labor
 on the asbestos regulations and it is the same
 kind  of issue where the same  people  are
 impinged upon by the DOL regulations and
 our regulations. And we really can bring them
 together and we're working with them to do
 that.  I  think we ought to be able to do that
 with the farming issue as well.
    In closing before the break, I want to
 reiterate how much  I appreciate all of you
 being here tonight. I know that you've taken
 time away from your families and work day
 and you could have been doing a lot of other
 different things.  I am learning a lot and I'm
 looking forward to the things that we're going
 to hear in the second half of this.  I  am
 hearing,  or  beginning to hear, something
which is  very exciting to  me, which is a
 dialogue, not only between us and you, but
                                                                           Florida  29

          perhaps  between some of you.   I actually
          heard things in common between people in
          this room who I thought would be more at
          odds  with  each other.   You know, the
          farmworkers, the farmers, the industry, the
          pesticide industry, you all have a prominent
          interest in a healthy and  vibrant agricultural
          economy, safe  work  places  and reducing
          liability, and safe foods.  I am very hopeful
          that maybe  one result of the discussion that
          we're having here tonight is that we can all
          identify that  common ground and continue to
          work together.
              So, we need to be back here in what—10
          minutes? Ten minutes if we can do that.
          Take a stretch.  Thank you all.

              [10 minute break]

              Pr. Marion Fuller: OK.  To send your
          written comments to EPA, it's EPA (7506 C),
          401 M Street SW, Washington, DC, 20460.
          Address your comments to Public Docket
          #OPP-00427.   And, if anybody needs that
          again, it will be  available here at the table.

              Andrew Esposito: I just want to mention
          a few points that are somewhat bothersome to
          us.  The first one is  the labels.  We try to
          teach, or tell, our handlers that the label is the
          law—don't just read the label but know the
          label (although some  of the labels could be
          written better).  This  one comes from PPE
          provisions.  We had one recently where a few
          owners    familiar    with    the    closed
          systems...[Inaudible]...  decides what  we're
          supposed to have and then  it goes on to say,
          "If it's an  enclosed system then the PPE
requirements are reduced."  And I've done
this annually-you have to go to the office, get
the book, get a copy  of it and show the
handler what these provisions are, and to me
if it could just be on the label to begin with..!
don't see the reason it's set up the way it is. It
makes it awfully confusing for a lot of people.

    The second thing: oral notification.  I see
some problems with the actual enforcement
of  that or compliance where  [Inaudible]...
myself have gotten on a bus  at a pick-up
point, ridden with the  crew; when the bus
stops, the crew leader reads information about
the price, productivity,  production, and the
pesticides.   Now,  whoever  gets  off the
bus...Two to three hours  later, I'll go back and
start asking people, "What did they tell you?
What were we  told before we got off the
bus?"  "Well, I don't know.  Well, I was told
$7.00 a tub."  "What else?" "Well, I don't
remember, I wasn't paying attention." I mean,
you have a situation where an inspector comes
in—now this is what I  worry about—where
we've done everything else and he asks those
questions of people and  they don't remember
anything about pesticides. Well, we told them,
but were they notified or were they not
notified?  Are we going to be fined because
there's two or three people out of 30 or 40
that didn't hear the notification?  I mean, were
they notified?  I  don't know.  I never told
them, they didn't hear, or maybe they were
notified.  It's something that bothers me and
it hasn't happened yet  but I can just see it
occurring if you had a  very zealous or very
picky inspector.  And I just don't think if we
30  Florida

 do everything else right that we should be held
 accountable for that.
    One last thing.  We feel that some of the
 30-day decontamination requirements can be
 very burdensome.  In our situation, we have
 over  10,000 acres  of groves, we'll have our
 central location, we'll have a map, we'll have
 this   and   that,  we'll  have  all  kinds  of
 particularities, but if you're not the average
 worker you may have some trouble picking
 which block  out  of that  10,000 in  that
 particular  area has been sprayed.  It  can be
 rather burdensome. And after the KEI is over
 and the signs are taken down, well, which one
 out of all of those blocks has actually been
 treated? It can be somewhat burdensome and
 very difficult to  understand for the average
 worker. That's all I think I wanted to  say.

   Miguel Montalvo: I'm an attorney with
 Florida Rural Legal Services and I just want
 talk  about  the  fact that we are  having a
 problem  with   pesticides enforcement in
 Florida even though there are not a lot of
 cases reported.  I see people in  my office
 come and in and say that they were exposed
 to pesticides and  they  suffered all  of the
 symptoms clearly of pesticides. But most of
 the time,  by the time that they go  to my
 office, usually most of their sickness seems to
 have gone.
   I remember before I was in this business
 I was a  farmworker and  I  used to pick
 tomatoes.   We would pick them during the
 day and at  night we'd have this rash like when
 you have  food  poisoning and then  in the
 morning it was gone. I heard a farmer last
week  saying that the condition is caused by
some fluid in the plant and it causes the rash
when it gets together this way, but the fact of
the matter is that, through my own personal
experience, I notice that when the plane was
spraying near us in the fields we used to suffer
the  symptoms, or when  the  fields were
actually wet with pesticides.  So, the farmers
follow the  rules and  everything—probably
they're not liable for the chemicals because
they follow the rules  and everything.  The
problem  is   I'm  talking   about  obvious
violations.  So we have problems in some
    I  have  problems  filing my cases on
pesticides because it's very difficult to prove it
in court, because by the time we go to court
it's not like you had an accident where you
have the scars, or a missing arm,  or whatever.
I'm here to suggest that maybe we should do
like they do in California. In California, even
the doctors know who has been exposed to
pesticides   and  we   know  there's   some
mandatory requirement that they report these
cases. The law doesn't have to fight—I mean,
in California if they don't do that, if they don't
report it, they're criminally liable. But not in
Florida, and we would like to  have something
like  that.    Florida will have  more  cases
reported   because  compared to California
there's four  or five  here  in  Florida and
thousands of them in California  even though
we're using as many, or maybe as  much,
pesticide as they use.  The way people talk,
when the workers come and tell me that they
have problems, they talk a lot about being in
the  fields—those applying  the pesticides,
tractors with no coverings, spraying the fields,
all the wind going—they get  completely wet,
                                                                           Florida  31

           completely wet with pesticides. And a lot of
           the workers I know don't have documents and
           they don't want to say anything because
           they're afraid of Immigration.  But that's what
           I want to say.
              I was reading some material—they said that
           they were testing this pesticide and they had
           400 tests to test how the pesticides affected
           the leaf or the plant, but they didn't have a
           single test to see how they  affect  the
           farmworker, or the one who picked the fruit,
           or the one who applied the pesticide.  Thank

              Sharon Bigger: Good evening. I'd like to
           welcome you all to central Florida again.  I'm
           not from Florida, I work with an organization
           called East Coast Migrant Health Project.  We
           are an organization committed to improving
           the health of migrant farmworkers and I
           might say that we're called East Coast Migrant
           Health  Project  because we  work with
           farmworkers and we, ourselves, are migrant as
           well.  For example, last season I spent in
           South Carolina, and I'm here for the orange
           season, and next season I'll go  somewhere  else
           up north. I see a great difference between the
           application of the Worker Protection Standard
           in South Carolina as compared to Florida. In
           South Carolina I spoke with crew leaders  and
           mentioned the words "soap  and water"  and
           they said, "No, no, no  one's going to use it,
           why should we put it out there?" And when
           I talked to  the workers they said,  "What?
           Washing hands?" When I came to Florida, as
           I drove down  the roads, I saw toilets (porta-
           johns) in the fields and I saw water on the
           back of the trucks.  I said, "Wonderful, this is
great."  And as I go on learning and talking
with  farmworkers  and  crew leaders  and
growers as well, I'm learning more about the
acceptance of the Worker Protection Standard
and its acceptance here in Florida.
   As I said, I work with an organization
called East Coast Migrant Health Project and
our  board  of  directors  is  made up  of
farmworkers,   of  growers,   of   health
professionals,  and of independent  citizens.
And I guess that would be my main point or
suggestion to growers (small growers and large
growers): to include farmworkers, as well as
growers, as well as crew leaders in the process
of health education, in the process of teaching
health education better.  Acknowledge that
farmworkers' experiences are valid, that their
experiences with pesticides are true and real,
and also that the growers have an  interest to
maintain as well.  I think the growers—like
someone said before—the growers  and the
farmworkers pretty much have  the  same
interests: protection as well as profit. I think
we need to keep both of those in mind.
    I  guess  what I'm  suggesting to  EPA is
creating an inspection evaluation tool of the
educational  process because as of  now,  as
some people said, we started with  flip charts
and they flopped and now we're  on to the
video.  And I talk with people in  Florida:
"Yeah, yeah, I've seen the video. Don't talk to
me anymore about it."  But what  I would
suggest  is  that we  create  an   inspection
evaluation tool to see if this is really effective.
'Because it's very common that I'll talk to a
farmworker [for whom] itching is a daily fact
of life. Skin itching is a fact, so much so that
it's almost  not even  an issue  anymore.
32   Florida

 Random rashes are just a fact of life for
 farmworkers, from what I have learned, from
 what I have seen. So my main suggestion to
 EPA   would  be  to  create  an  effective
 evaluation tool on the educational process for
 teaching the Worker Protection Standard, and
 to the companies to  include everybody in the
 process of teaching  and protecting. Because
 it   should  not  just  be   the   grower's
 responsibility,  it  should not just  be  the
 farmworker's responsibility. I think it needs
 to be all of our responsibility in protecting one
 another.  Thank you.

    Roman Rodriguez: Buenos noches.  I'm
 very concerned about the time. Some of our
 brothers  and  sisters  are here who only
 understand one language so I don't know how
 long I'm going to have, but I really would like
 to speak in Spanish for them. [Speaking in
 Spanish with English interpreter]: He's going
 to talk in Spanish but  he also wants some time
 for the translation. He has been working for
 at least 12 years on the coast. He has followed
 all of the harvestings. He is the coordinator
 here in Florida of the Worker Association for
 Florida.  A coordinator who  not only has
 experience as a new coordinator but also as a
worker.    He  had  been...[Interpreter  is
interrupted  by  Roman   Rodriguez who
   About six months ago, I  had a  family
experience where my mom and my sister were
so swollen, coming running from the fields,
and they were intoxicated from the chemicals.
And that's just one of the ones that I had in
my family. But that's just to tell you that I had
that experience  in my hands.  When  I'm
 talking about pesticides, I  might not be able
 to prove it with papers and numbers and all of
 that, but I can tell you how it feels to be in the
 field and feel the pressure of pesticides.
     [Speaking  in  Spanish  with  English
 interpreter]: As  coordinator,  one of  my
 responsibilities is to coordinate the trainings.
 We are being approved by EPA as trainers. I,
 myself, am a master trainer so I can train
 trainers to train the workers.  And we have
 come across all different kinds of trainings.
 There are trainings that are not as effective as
 the ones-well, I don't like to talk about me as
 an example, but I have seen a big  difference
 between  the trainings that we  give and the
 trainings  that are  given around  by video.
 Even though some of them are well-explained
 and well-meaning, some of them are even in
 Spanish, but as the brother here was saying,
 some of the words are not like the  Mexicans,
 like  the  Puerto  Ricans use.  Even  though
 you've been sitting there for the  15,  20
 minutes, as long as the training takes, then you
 don't get as much. One of the things that you
 don't get is  where to comply with the law—
who is going to be responsible, you don't have
nobody  to  report  to,  the workers to  file
complaints to follow-up on things that are
  .  I have heard and I've seen  some of the
cards that are not EPA exactly,  the EPA
official cards.  There are some places where
the official cards have been sold, so this isn't
any joke.  I mean, we are not concerned about
giving the people the card.  To me, myself, I
don't care to give you the card or not, what I
care, or our main concern, is that people learn.
                                                                            Florida  33

             Another thing that we have faced, and it is
          a very sad experience myself:  I have taken
          some workers  to  the doctors and  health
          providers and different places.   And one of
          the  brothers was saying before  (I think
          Miguel) that even though some doctors are
          willing  to  help,  they  don't  have  any
          experience.   They honestly tell you, "You
          came to the wrong person. Even if I wanted
          to help, I can't help, I cannot help." On the
          other hand, I think six cases last year were
          reported to Tallahassee. I have  seen six cases
          within a single day. Horrible.
              OK,  about  the accidents.    As  an
          experience, I really haven't seen a good case
          where an  accident happened and a good
          follow-up was done. I've been part of various
          complaints and most of those complaints I
          haven't seen a good response from DACS. It
          was a big case in [Inaudible]  ...on a big ranch
          where  over  200 workers were undirected.
          They were using the tractors and the air was
          blowing the pesticides  and  suddenly  the
          people started bleeding and  falling down,
          passing away, and nothing was done.  Rural
          Legal Services  complained  about it and—I
          don't have the facts right here with me-but it
          was a joke. Even though it was many people
          falling down in fields as they were spraying, I
          believe they said  they  could  not prove  it
          because the workers didn't know what kind of
          chemicals they were exposed to. Plus, nobody
          knows, you know,  they get confused who has
          the responsibility—should  they follow the
           contractor, crew leader, or the farmer?
               So one of the things we would really like
           to ask you to turn attention to is where we
           complain.  I myself put in a set of complaints
on a few companies from Broward County
and a representative from the state came and
talked to me. I was very upset when I heard
what he had to say to me.  And I have those
documents, I have this letter here telling me
the requirements for a farmworker to  file a
complaint.  He wanted to get a picture (and I
have it in writing here), he wanted to get a
picture of who complained, he wanted to get
an affidavit, he wanted to get a state legal ID,
and I think that's it. That's enough!  Is this
really willing to help?  You know I wasn't
scared, I was very upset. So it helped, I wrote
a letter later on and I very strongly disagreed
and  it did  help.    Now,  you know,  we're
working better.
    But how it helps to have these laws if we
have to really face these people, to force them
to do the job? This is not human for people
to be exposed to chemicals. We're not asking
anybody not to use chemicals, but what we're
asking them is to use them properly. That's all
:we're asking for,  that's all I have to say.
Thanks for the time you allowed me to be a

    Luckner Millien: Hi, my name is Luckner
Millien and I'm representing the Farm Worker
Association.  I'm coming from Broward
County.  It's about three hours  and a half
driving to here and one thing that I would like
to suggest is that the  next  time you have
 something like this make it for, especially for,
Broward County.  In Broward County, there
 are over 7,000 farmworkers and they are very
 interested in hearing all these opinions that
 everybody is giving.
34  Florida

     I think the Worker Protection Standard is
 a good thing. It's something that farmworkers
 have been asking for many years.  And one
 thing that I'm talking about is Right-to-Know
 pesticides.  It's helping farmworkers  to  be
 concerned  more about  pesticides.   But I
 would like to make a specific issue. I don't
 know if the Labor Department and  the
 Agriculture Department are here or not. The
 reason I'm saying this is  because there are
 many regulations that are not in effect. For
 example, in Broward County it's hard for us to
 see as farmworkers the posted warning signs
 when...|Tnaudible]   And  I believe that the
 farmworkers aren't the  only ones who are
 having contact with pesticides every day, every
 single minute and every single hour until they
 finish the day of work. In many companies
 we don't see the access to central information
 from the companies.  And  if there is this
 access to information, the growers will not tell
 the farmworkers what is this information.
    Related to the re-entry times, we feel that
 there have been violations, especially with the
 small growers. Why? Because sometimes they
 have small acres, or a farm, or other fruits, and
 they apply the chemicals for one day and the
 next day the farmworkers are picking  these
 fruits. In Broward County it's very normal to
 see,  especially in the community where it is
 very easy to see, many  farmworkers  with
 swollen hands.   Roman, my friend Roman,
was  telling you  about pesticide symptoms.
There are a lot of farmworkers that have been
working for over 50 years and right now we
can identify very easily farmworkers with long
term symptoms, as he was mentioning.
     For me it's a new word—decontamination
  sites. We don't know if they will exist or not.
  It's  something that I haven't seen yet, a
  decontamination site in Broward County. I
  believe  that,  not only  as  Roman  was
  mentioning, we are registered to be a pesticide
  training  site  by EPA, and believe more in
  safety education—as Fernando  Cuevas and
  Roman Rodriguez mentioned, the Spanish is
  different from the workers.' Sometimes there
  are many of them that don't know how to
  read.  A lot of pesticide training is given to the
  farmworkers  in English and they don't know
  how to read it, and writing in Spanish is hard
  for them too,  and so is to understand English.
  The solution  that many of the trainers have
  given to farmworkers on pesticides, they just
  put a video in  English and that's it—they don't
  even ask questions  of the farmworkers, they
  don't even ask how  the  farmworkers are
  feeling about the symptoms.  So I feel there
  has to be special training for the growers and
  crew  leaders—they are the  ones  who are
  dealing with farmworkers and they have to
  have a more specialized training so they can
 do more education about pesticides.
   : There is much lack of enforcement about
 this regulation,  so  I would like to see the
 Labor Department deal  better with  this
 Worker Protection Standard regulation.   I
 hope  they can go to Broward County.  We
 have a lot of documenting on companies, we
 could show it to them so they could go in and
 start doing their job. Thank you, and excuse
; my English.

    Cruz Cabrera: Good evening, everybody.
 Welcome to  Florida.   My  name  is Cruz
                                                                          Florida  35

         Cabrera and I work for the Farm Workers
         Association in Florida. And before I went to
         work for the Farm Workers Association I
         used to work in the fields doing all kinds of
         work-picking oranges,  vegetables, and so
         forth.  I used to work for two different places
         in this  country.  This time I want to tell
         something about my work in Apopka.  I call
         myself a community worker because I work
         with the community. In Apopka, I am also
         the  employer because I sometimes  try to
         convince the  employees  to  receive our
         pesticide training and sometimes they are
         afraid to receive it because they don't want to
         lose their job. And when I talk to employers
          I receive a lot of complaints. These are their
          complaints, sometimes they are the appliers—
          they apply pesticides without license, without
          understanding the idiom, the English.
              So my  point is the employers are really
          sending the employees  directly  to  danger
          because they don't know why to apply it, and
          they don't know for what it is, how bad it can
          be, and how it can affect their health.  And I
          noticed  times  when I  tried  to  talk  to
          employers  about  offering   our  pesticide
          training to the workers,  they said, "I gave
          some information to my employees." So they
          don't know what I say, what I am doing, but
          I didn't see any sign in their label and their
          nursery to  say why it is that way, a sign that
          says why apply this kind of chemical  in this
          area. I did not see nothing like that. So really
          I  think that from EPA we  need more
          enforcement in those areas because I noticed
          times when there were some employers who
          told me, "I don't know nothing about EPA."
           I think they ought to know because they are
the persons who have the workers. There is
nothing wrong to try to give the pesticide
training to labor workers because that helps
the employees and that helps the employers,
too. The worker can work safely and without
   Another tough situation I used to find is
someone from my company, or as we say in
Spanish, my co-workers, sometimes...[Taping
suspended while tape was changed]...and they
continued with the same symptoms because I
know some people cannot breathe very good
because their noses are covered. I know some
people  who  have problems with  swelling
when they go  to their work.  And that is
because of the pesticides.  But also,  I guess
some of them  don't know about pesticides.
So I think one of the things we need to tell
the doctors is  how to detect the pesticide
symptoms, so when one worker goes to see
the doctor, they can find if this is caused by a
different disease or caused by pesticides. And
we need some lawyers too, because we need
some lawyers to  cover these cases.  Some
people, they lose their jobs, they cannot work,
and  they don't have unemployment, they
don't have any kind of benefits.  So what can
we do?  That is my worry.  We need to be
more .qareful  in these situations because it
makes me sad when I try to teach the people
about pesticides, how to be safe, and then
when they have problems and they come to
 rne..,really, there is not a lot of help I can offer
 to them- So, that is all I can say.  I don't have
 a lot of English to speak because I only use a
 little of it.  So that is one part of my methods
 on this, so thank you very much.
36  Florida

     Orlando Yanez [Speaking in Spanish with
 English interpreter]:  My name is Orlando
 Yanez. I'm coming from Dade county.  This
 is a very long and hard trip to do. We have a
 very big interest in giving our opinions with
 this matter.  For the farmworkers, ourselves,
 me implementation of WPS is very important.
 It's very important for us. Some people might
 say that this is working  for us.  It's not
 working.  I want  to mention, a couple of
 comments, specific examples, for the reason
 that I'm saying this.
     I  know  places  where the  bottles, the
 containers, of pesticides are being burned in
 the open air.  And since we are working and
 living very close to these places, the smoke is
 coming all over our places. I myself live in
 this town where over 200 families live, which
 is very close  to this place where they use
 airplanes to apply the chemicals.  They often
 burn  the  containers,  so when  the air is
 blowing through our community, it smells
 very bad,  because all of the containers are
 burning and it comes to our houses.  As a
 worker I have the experience of going to these
 public, portable toilets.  As a worker and an
 organizer, I have the experience of feeling the
 symptoms, or what it feels like,  of going to
 these restrooms that haven't been cleaned for
 more than a week.
    Another joke that I found is that some of
 the   farmers  that   are  supposed   to  be
 responsible to train their workers, instead of
 training them, they  force them to be trained
 somewhere.  If they don't get trained, they
 deduct more than  one  dollar out of their
 paycheck-$1.25/hour is  deducted from the
worker that doesn't get trained.  A clear
 example is on this ranch where the workers
 who are getting trained are getting $5.25, while
 the others who aren't being trained are getting
 $1.35 less.
    To explain this, you have to believe that
 the farmers don't really understand that they
 can really get into a big problem because they
 could  really  kill  people.   In  many  cases
 (especially  the avocados and the  mangos)
 there have  been cases where [Inaudible] ...has
 been picking and has been sprayed directly
 with chemicals, without knowing what kind of
 chemicals.  I was mentioning those two types
 of crops,  but you could see it on all the
 different crops—squash,  tomatoes, chili, hot
 pepper. To mention one of the cases that
 happened in the last four months, where 10
 workers were  exposed to  chemicals, all of
 them got symptoms but one of them died.
 The results  from the doctor were that he died
 from a heart attack or something.   Well, I
 would say that we cannot prove that but it was
 scary, very scary.  For us, there are  so many
 problems and we could go on and on all night
 long. We really hope that by doing this the
 laws could be really enforced. A very good
 night to all of you.

    Tirso Moreno: All of us who work at the
 organization,   we   have   experience   as
 farmworkers. I guess that's one of the things
 that makes us effective in what we're doing.  I
worked from 1971 to  1983 full-time  as  a
 farmworker,  picking   many  fruits  and
vegetables.  My family and my wife still work
in an orchard. After we stopped picking fruit,
she worked for nine years for [Inaudible] and
Sons. Me and my wife, we had experiences
                                                                           Florida  37

          that were the effect of pesticides which we did
          not recognke right away until years later.  And
          doctors  and people did not tell us nothing
          until years later when we could do nothing. It
          is also very hard to cope—the relationship
          between the  pesticides and  the  dangerous
          health problems. But we had a lot of people
          who suffered. As my co-workers who  were
          talking about people who suffered immediate
          symptoms, or immediate problems, people
          who truly got chronic health problems.  I
          witness  a lot of that in our community and I
          get a lot of reports from my co-workers about
          what's  happening  in  the  fields, what's
          happening to our people.
             So,  I just want to say that I think that
          having  the Worker Protection  Standard is
          progress.  I think it's good. We have a lot to
          improve  on  those  Worker   Protection
          Standards. It will take a long time to get  them
          improved. And I mean, I think it's good.  I
          think probably it's going to take a long time
          also to put them  in practice.  They're not
          completely good.  There are improvements
          and you know what those improvements are.
          And we point out those things that make the
          Worker Protection Standard not effective
          enough. In putting them to practice, I  know
          it's going to take time.   I  think  we  need
          collaboration from the employers, especially
          the employers' agents such as crew leaders,
          labor contractors.  I think the heads of the
          agricultural companies—what they say is one
          thing and what they're representing because
          their agents  are saying it, is another  thing.
          When we bring a case to the company, what
          we're saying, and what workers say, and what
          the company agent is saying—they go by what
the company agent is saying. That's very true.
It's their agent, it's their people, and they go
by what they're saying. They don't believe in
the workers and that is the problem.
    And I think practice has to change. The
crew leaders and the labor contractors have to
help. They have to tell the workers of the
dangers of the  pesticides, the  danger  of
exposure,  and the consequences in the time
after the exposure. If they don't start saying
that to the workers, it's going to be very hard.
It doesn't matter how much we tell them.  I
mean, if they don't do it, we're going to make
complaints.   I think it's important to  make
complaints and  I think it's  important that
EPA, that the Department of Agriculture, that
the  Department  of Labor go and do
inspections.  We  have  to work on  some
problems  that we had in terms of having
inspections because, as you know, some of the
vegetable  workers  move around  too  much,
and then by the time the inspectors come it's
very hard to find proof of what has happened.
So I don't know how we're going to work
those problems  but we have to work those
problems because otherwise it's not going to
be possible to take care of the inspections or
to enforce the regulation.
    We do trainings. We do a lot of trainings.
And I give credit to my co-workers for doing
good,  effective  trainings.   Out of  those
trainings we  get people's information so we
can put complaints. I think it's very hard for
workers to protect themselves.  First, they
 don't know...if they're not well-trained, they're
 not going to recognize the violations that are
 there. First, they have to be trained. Second,
 somebody else has to make the complaint for
38  Florida

 them. It's not easy for them to complain, they
 are afraid of the  company agents, and I've
 been a worker and I know how you feel to put
 in danger a job that you need to support your
 family. So we are making complaints. I'm not
 afraid to say it, especially with those employers
 who are not helping in enforcing the WPS,
 we're going to have to make complaints.
    The last thing I want to say is that we have
 applied for funding from the original office of
 EPA to do education (and that education is a
 form of training) and we have been denied
 funding.    The  funding,  I  think  is  for
 environmental justice purposes and I want you
 to think it out, because we need more money
 so we can do more work. We can prove that
 the work we're doing is effective work.  So, I
 think we qualify.  I don't  know where the
 funding is going— to rich and poor, but I
 think the farmworkers also have  problem of
 environmental justice because  we  are what
 people  call  a  "minority"  and  we  have
 environmental problems at work. Thank you.

    Sergio Duran [Speaking in  Spanish with
 English  interpreter]:    A  good  night  to
 everyone and my name is Sergio Duran (and
 he has asked me to be his helper).  I am
 coming  from Homestead,  Florida—it's just
 about a five-hour drive. This is a big issue so
 I'm hoping that whatever I speak will be
 heard.  I have been trained and I have seen
 many things that are not the way they are
 supposed to be—the way I was  trained—they
 are not  legal.   Many  times when we are
working with the tomatoes, the sprayers come
 in and spray us without asking us to leave the
 place.   It's not  only that they spray  it on
 directly, but we have to keep having contact
 with the plants.  I know about re-entry time
 and nothing is being done about that.  All of
 them, they don't announce  anything at all
 when they apply chemicals.
    On one of these occasions, one of my co-
 workers started feeling diarrhea, sweating, and
 stomach ache a  lot and the workers said that
 it was related.  So when the crew leader asked
 the farmer to take this person to the doctor,
 that  it was  the farmer's responsibility, his
 response was, "You should go to a particular
 doctor, I shouldn't have anything to do with
 it,  it's not related to the chemicals." Being
 afraid of losing our job, we  sort of gained
 confidence among ourselves and we told the
 farmer that he  had to do  something about
 this,  knowing that he could  fire us.  We
 pushed him that he had to take this person to
 the doctor.   In the beginning, he started
 laughing at us,  saying that he had  enough
 money  to   erase   us   from   the  earth.
 Afterwards, I think he started really thinking
 about the words that we told him and he sent
 a crew leader to look for this person, finally to
 take this person  to the farmer's doctor. And
 the diagnosis  from this doctor was saying,
 "Yeah,  the  crew was trying to catch this
    I  would really like to see  more people
 involved  and   coming  to  our area  of
 Homestead—to check people  for not being
 trained and for those cards we are supposed
 to have.  It has been a good while since the
 law has been in operation, and  I've  been
working for a long time and I've  never seen
 any inspector coming around, checking to see
                                                                          Florida   39

          how things are. I want to thank you all for
          listening to me.

             Domingo Gomez [Speaking in Spanish
          with English interpreter]: Good night.  First
          of all, my name is Domingo Gomez. I'm here
          as  a  member  of  the  Farm  Workers
          Association and we're based in Homestead.
          I'm also here as a farmworker with experience
          as a farmworker in the field.  I have a very
          good example that I would like you all to hear.
          I was •working for this farmer who was paying
          $5.50 per hour.  At that moment, I  did not
          have my EPA card. So because I didn't have
          it; and I didn't have a way to get a copy of it,
          I started  getting only $4.25 an hour.  It
          happened only two weeks ago. I'd really like
          to see something done about this.  We are
          used like  a negotiation, like a tool  for the
          farmers.  I feel like this is discrimination that
          they're doing against us.
              I want to make this clear—that this was a
          farmer doing this and that I was part of that
          process,  that action.  He gathered all the
          workers and he stepped on  his truck. The
          only  words   that   he   mentioned—while
          everybody was  working  and  he called
          everybody from the fields, standing on  his
          truck—he  said,  "Everybody  should take
          showers and wash when they get home.   I
          don't want anybody touching their babies as
          you're coming from  the  fields.   What I'm
          saying here is in  case somebody comes and
          investigates me.  So you  better understand
          what I'm saying.  I don't want to  get in any
          trouble so you better understand what I'm
          saying.  Now  that you understood what  I
          meant; sign  here for my protection."  To
defend himself he made us sign this paper for
him  to use  whenever  he needed  it.   I
understand  about  the  training  and   I
understand how they need to be done.   I
mean, that's nothing in comparison to what
he did—to say just take a shower and don't
touch your baby.
   In  the  field where we work there are
many, many violations.  I have been myself a
farmworker for 10 years.  I have many cases
of experience that I could mention. Last year
I was tying the tomato up  on a stake  so it
wouldn't break and the sprayer was on top of
   I drove five hours from Homestead with
some other co-workers.  This is not a joke for
us—to drive five hours one way and to go back
another five  hours—it's  not easy. I would
really like to see that all of the farmworkers as
we work we'd really be protected.  We really
wish  that you see that the laws are really
complied.  In the name of the Farm Workers
Association, I want to thank you for all of
your attention.

    Alfonso Serno: My name  is Serno and I
am with the Farm Workers Association of
Florida.  I have been listening to all of these
things that people had to say about the
situation out there and I hope that you paid
good attention to them—to listen to what they
said and also  to take important notes about
that.  Many things that I have been thinking
about, especially the kind of training owners
are giving to people, you know it's a kind of
training that's like, "Well, since you have to get
a card, let's give you a 10-minute training, or
 15 minutes, or a 20-minute training and then
40  Florida

 get rid of this situation." And I hope that you
 really pay attention to that because when it's
 time to train people about pesticides, I don't
 think  that it's  10 minutes,  15 minutes, 20
 minutes—I think it takes a good amount of
 time to have  a really good training and
 understanding of the situation. So that's one
 thing—while I was listening to some people
 which  I  never had  much  chance  before
 tonight—it's something that I see every day.
    And even in listening to my people in my
 area who are working in that particular field
 Pnaudible]... in that section, in that area, and
 not far from you the airplane is passing right
 there and spraying while you are in the field.
 And this is something that's happening every
 day, always happening out there. Because like
 me who is from Apopka ... I think you EPA
 people ... Apopka is  famous for being the
 capital [Inaudible] ...of the world, but don't
 forget there is  a big  farm  operation in
 Apopka.  Me, I remember one day when I was
 in the field, and that day it was about 90
 degrees high,  and then  the  airplane  was
 coming back and people had to run away fast,
 I mean run real fast in order to escape this
way. Could you imagine, I mean the airplane
 is  passing  in the air and  then the wind is
 blowing, when it's passing by and spraying, the
wind just takes it right on you.  So this is really
a direct spray on people.
    And my question, for  EPA especially is,
how do things like that keep happening?  You
know  how it's  happening?   Because  I
remember (when was that,  Sunday) I was out
visiting people in my neighborhood, and there
is a group of people who live in an apartment
complex which I  am very  friendly with, and
 they told me, "You know, it's been happening
 to us with the airplanes.  If the airplane is still
 spraying, why are we working?"  And the
 question which came in my mind was, how do
 things like that happen anyway? I mean, how
 can growers, farmers, whoever they are—why
 are people out working for you  in the field
 and having the airplanes spraying at the same
 time?   I am sure it's not happening in every
 area. I am sure it's not happening in every
 state.   But it's happening all over Florida
 wherever there are farms, wherever they are
 farming.  The people, while our people are
 working the fields, they are spraying, OK?
 Pesticides are being used.
   And so are the greenhouses. There are
 cases in the greenhouses where  people are
 being used to spray, people who don't know
 nothing about pesticides, I mean  nothing,
 OK? You can have someone from Haiti—last
 week it happened—and he was being used as a
 sprayer with no training.   It is  happening.
 Maybe you don't know it.  Maybe you have
 not seen it. Do  you  know why?  Because
 maybe  you are not really  out there.  But
 people like me who are out there every day, in
 different fields, in greenhouses, I know it's
 happening because I have seen it. And you
 could be a fool if you think people are not
 concerned about it, especially the Haitian
 people I know. When I talk to them they are
very  concerned about it—they are  thinking
about it, they are talking about it.  So, I think
it's a big, big, big mistake when we are talking
about the WPS and then here we are working
in the fields and having the airplanes spraying
not too far, you know just a few feet. And
then when you are working in the field, I
                                                                           Florida  41

           mean no matter what kind of distance the
           airplane is from you, the wind can easily take
           the spray and drop it on you.
              So if we are talking about the worker's
           protection safety, we need to know...I think
           EPA has a responsibility to let the growers,
           nursery owners, whoever they are, know: I
           mean business!   I mean  business, OK?
           Because pesticides, no matter what kind, they
           are poison. They are poisons. I mean, human
           beings and pesticides don't mix. They cannot
           be mixed, you know?  Because no matter who
           they are, no matter where they are from, rich
           or poor, they are human beings because God
           used his precious hands to create them.  And
           then  therefore everybody  has  the  duty  to
           respect people as human beings no matter
           who they are. Thank you.

              Dr. Marion Fuller: That wraps up our
           speakers and I'll turn it over to Lynn in just a
           second. I'd like to express my appreciation to
           all of you for observing the time (the few
           times I had to stand up) and I do appreciate it.
           And  I think I speak for all of us when I say
           thank you for bringing a whole number of
           things to our attention and I'll let Lynn take it
           over  from here.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman: OK, I'm going to
           make it brief but I wanted to repeat some of
           the things that I've heard here, partly to  let
           you know that we were listening to what you
           had to say.  First, I want to start out though
           by acknowledging the excellent work that I
           think has been done here in Florida to comply
           with the Worker Protection Standard. And I
           think that some of the  things that I  have
heard here today are testament to that—that
the state has worked very hard at this, that we
have here in Florida farmers who are aware of
the requirements  of this standard  and are
trying their best to comply. Many of them are
complying very successfully and that  was
heartening. And we have far more workers
who understand the standard—understand the
standard well enough to know what  their
rights are.  I think that is very important.  And
so, I believe that over the last year—really it's
been just  in the last year that we've had full
implementation-that a  lot of  progress has
been made here and I feel good about that.
    I  hear some issues that I  believe  EPA
needs to address—probably the state, probably
all of us are going to need to work on. There
is  one issue that  is clearly  an  issue for the
EPA, and was  raised  by a number of the
growers here tonight, that has to do with the
issue of decontamination equipment and how
we deal with that.  That is something that we
are working on right now in the EPA in terms
of clarifying that and seeing if there is some
room for reducing  some of the burden—if
there are some common sense changes that
we can make.
    The second issue has to do with the 48-
hour re-entry interval.  I have a couple of
things that I want to say to those of you who
are left here. First, to  say that the low-risk
pesticides for which we provided a shorter
REI, the 4-hour REI, we did that using what
I would say was a very blunt tool. I wanted to
very  quickly shave  off the ones that  were
clearly low-risk so that we were not  doing an
absurd thing like having a 48-hour REI for a
pheromone or some very low risk thing. But
42  Florida

we recognize that there are some pesticides
that also  belong in  that category  that also
don't require a 48-hour REI.  We did  use
science to  make that cut. We did use science.
And we do have a lot of scientific data for
each  and every pesticide registered in  the
United  States.  But  to cut other ones out,
we're going to have to do a much more time-
consuming,  a  lengthier,  more  difficult,
scientific analysis  than we did on that initial
cut.  And we will be  looking  to, in some
instances, the registrants to make the case for
these shorter REIs. Because this is going to
be a case-by-case examination and  there will
be  some  responsibility on the part of  the
registrants.  I'm sure in some instances  the
growers will want to help with that.
    There were many comments about  the
Worker Protection Standard training and the
need to evaluate the training and we do agree
with that  We do have some efforts underway
to do that.  I too  am concerned about some
of the specific  issues that people have raised,
such as the  language, the materials, and  the
issue of literacy of the training.  These are very
challenging issues. These are not questions
where there are  simple  "cut and dried"
answers. And I think we are going to have to
all work together in order to find the  right way
to  do  the  training in  the  future.  The
evaluations will help.  I think also  meetings
like this help. It helps  to hear from everybody
about how it's going.
    The issue of implementation of enforce-
ment was  raised by several people,  especially
many of  the farmworkers, and we too  are
concerned about this. It's probably true that
the standard has not totally penetrated into all
of the agricultural sector yet.  Some growers
are doing all of the things that they should be
doing—some  probably  -were  doing  them
before  we  did  the   standard  (and  we
understand that), some are doing more today
than they were before, some have not yet
adopted all of the provisions of the standard,
and I think we realize that.  And I think that
there is work underway.  I think that the state
is doing a good job in trying to address that.
One thing that may have happened here
tonight is  that perhaps they  have learned
about some specific areas where they're going
to need to concentrate their efforts.  That's
useful to hear about.  Some of the issues  like
posting  the  central  signs  are  important
components of the standard and are going to
have to  be dealt with.  One that was very
tough, and  I don't know the answer to, but I
think is going to have to be worked out, is
how do you deal with complaints? What is
the appropriate way for a complaint to be filed
and how do you deal with that? And how do
you  deal with the  possibility of fear of
retaliation because of a complaint? This is  a
very serious problem and one that I would
encourage all of you to work together on.  I
don't think that we should necessarily dictate
everything about how the procedures are done
from Washington.  On the other hand, in
terms of the  credibility  of the process, it is
very important to us that there be a guide to
deal with problems if they do arise.
   The issue of poisoning was another one
that came up. I am a doctor myself and I do
know that the training that doctors receive in
the area of pesticide poisoning is not what  I
would  like it  to be.  I think that doctors do
                                                                           Florida  43

           need to have better recognition of poisonings.
           There were some comments  made  about
           reportings and I think that is something that
           the state can certainly look at. I will tell you
           that I worked in the State of California, and
           even there with the law, many times the
           doctors do not report the illnesses. But at least
           there is some reporting; And it is useful having
           the reporting.   But I think there are many
           reasons that they fail to report.
              At EPA there are a couple of things that
           we are doing that I wanted to mention that I
           think  are  important   tools.     We  do
           have...[Taping  suspended while  tape was
           changed] ...The other thing that we have, that
           I think  is a very wonderful resource, is  a
           hotline (I  don't have the phone number, I
           think it is on some of our literature out there).
           It is an 800 number and  it takes you  to
           Oregon State University, where some of the
           top experts on pesticides in the country are in
           terms of understanding the toxicology. And
           that's available to any doctor in the country
           who has a question and needs to consult with
           somebody who's really an expert.
              We are doing some work on the problem
           of spray drift—that was raised by some of the
           workers. We are doing what we call a "data
call-in" with the pesticide registrants to get a
better  handle and  they have  been  very
cooperative with us. It is a problem and we
need to have  the proper science in hand to
solve the problem and that's how we are
approaching it.
   In closing, I want to say that we take the
responsibility   to protect  workers  from
pesticides very seriously and that's why we're
out here tonight. I should have said  at the
beginning that this is the first of a number of
these meetings that we're holding across the
country.  This is really a national dialogue on
pesticides—we  hope to learn something about
your region but we will be out in other regions
of the country as well. We do  believe in
continuous improvement. We want to make
the standard work and in order to do that we
need to get the feedback that we got tonight.
And I do again want to thank all of you for
coming here and doing that.  This has been
very helpful. Thank you. Bye.

   Dr.   Marion  Fuller:  Thank  you  all.

   [Meeting adjourned]
44  Florida

Registered Participants in the Public Meeting
          Osiel Aguirre

          Ben Albritton, Jr.
          Florida Agriculture Spray Technology

          Scott Almon
          Florida Dept. of Labor

          Raynaldo Avilas Contraras

          Israel Baez, Jr.
          A. Duda & Sons, Inc.

          Alfredo Bahena
          Farm Workers Association of Florida

          Kathie Barghad
          Alcoma Packing Co. Inc.

          Sharon Bigger
          East Coast Migrant Health Project, Inc.

          Ramon Bueno
          Farm Labor Organizing Committee

          Cruz & Alfredo Cabrera
          Asociacion Campesina de Florida

          Chad Chandler
          ISK Biosciences

         W.P. Cockrell
         Florida Farm Bureau
 Ray Crawford
 Florida Farm Bureau

 Fernando Cuevas, Jr.
 Farm Labor Organizing Committee

 Fernando Cuevas, Sr.
 Farm Labor Organizing Committee

 Richard Dole
 Bowen Brothers Fruit Company, Inc.

 Ricky Dorman
 ISK Biosciences

 Frank S. Dowdle
 Southern Gardens Groves Corporation

 Sergio Duran
 Farm Workers Association of Florida

John C. Durkin
 Orange-Co Inc. & Subsidiaries

 Margarita Espinoza
Turner Foods Corp.

Tina Espiricueta
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Andrew Esposito
U.S. Sugar Corporation

Jose Esquivel
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
                                                                              Florida  45

          Raphord Farmington

          Gary Fish

          Dominique Gomez
          Farm Workers Association of Florida

          Felipe Gonzalez
          Farm Workers Association of Florida

          Strick Gresham

          Mary Hartney
          Polk County Farm Bureau

          Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association

          Ronald Hill
          The Agricultural and Labor Program

          James T. Hinkle
          Smoak Groves, Inc. &
          Highlands County Citrus Grove Association

          Chip Hinton
          Florida Strawberry Growers Association

          Nate Jameson

          Monty Knox
          Knox Nursery Inc.
Mike Lott

Mac Martin
Peace River Citrus Products

Alberto Mata
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Juan Mato
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Charles Matthews
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Assocation

Burt McKee
United Agri Products

Bobby F. McKown
Florida Citrus Mutual

Juan A. Mendez
Cargill Juice

Jesus Mendez
Turner Foods Corp.

Florencio Mendoza

Luckner Millien
Farmworker Assocation of Florida

Miguel A. Montalvo
Florida Rural Legal Services

Tirso Moreno
Farm Workers Association of Florida
46  Florida

 Kevin Morgan
 Florida Farm Bureau
 Juan Sanchez
 O.N. Nesheim
 University of Florida
 Pesticide Information Office

 Epifanio Pena

 Benite Plillien
 Farm Workers Association of Florida
 Guillermo Sanchez
 Farm Labor Organizing Committee

 Florence Sergile
 Florida Museum of Natural History-
 University of Florida

 Alfonso Serno
 Farm Workers Association of Florida
Pepe Porro
U.S. Sugar Corporation

Roman Rodriguez
Farmworker Association of Florida

Silvestre M. Rodriguez
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Reyes T. Rodriguez
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Clementina Rodriguez
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Sementero Rodriguez
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Rosa Rodriguez
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Steven Rogers, Ph.D.
Ecostat, Inc.
Bill Simmone

Darin Simmons
Lykes Bros. Inc.

Thomas B. Smith
Thomas B. Smith Farms

Perry L. Sparkman
Pesticide Review Council & Citrus Growers

John Stephens, Jr.
John Stephens Inc.

Robert Swanson
Florida Dept. of Labor

Julian Tentes
Farm Labor Organizing Committee

Larry Tiner
                                                                        Florida 47

          Laura Vasquez
          Florida Rural Legal Services

          Jovier Velazquez
          Farm Workers Association of Florida

          Marta Velazquez
          Farm Workers Association of Florida

          Baldemar Velazquez
          Farm Labor Organizing Committee

          Charles Wilson
          United States Sugar Corporation
Travis Wise
Cargill Citro

Lucy Wood
Florida Legal Services

Orlando Yanez
Farm Workers Association of Florida

James Yowell
Griffin Corporation
48  Florida

Site Visits and  Small  Group Discussions
           Farmworkers, Hillsborough County, FL
           •   February 23, 1996, 5:00 a.m.
           •   Meeting with citrus workers in Hillsborough County, Florida as the workers were entering
              citrus orchards to glean fallen fruit.
           •   EPA staff, accompanied by Fernando Cuevas, Sr. and Fernando Cuevas, Jr. of the Farm
              Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), spoke with the workers about their awareness of
              safety training and other WPS provisions.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —    AFL-CIO representatives noted what they saw as a recent trend among Florida
                    growers of hiring independent contractors and expecting them to assume
                    responsibilities for WPS training and other labor requirements.

              —    Concerns were expressed about child labor issues, including very young children
                    (possibly under 10  years old) working in the fields.

              —    When asked, some workers said they had not received any pesticide safety training.
                    Others had received training, in some cases in other states, such as Michigan and
                    New Jersey. Those who said they had been trained were knowledgeable of the basic
                    safety concepts, such as washing clothes separately, washing hands before eating, etc.

             —    Most of the workers, including those who had received pesticide safety training, were
                    unaware that a regulation existed specifically to protect them from pesticide  exposure
                    and risks.

          Alcoma Citrus Packing & Processing Company, Lake Wales, FL
          •  February 23, 1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •  EPA staff, accompanied by Bob McKown of Florida Citrus Mutual, and Phillip Herndon of
             Alcoma Citrus, toured Alcoma's growing and processing operations.
          •  Among the issues and observations raised at the meeting were:

             —    Visitors observed the control of pesticide mixing, loading and application operation
                   for citrus products.  Alcoma representative stressed the engineering controls used to
                   maintain a safe mixing and loading operation.
                                                                                  Florida  49

                    Alcoma representative stated that there was a need for safety training for pesticide
                    handlers. Training was considered neither disruptive nor problematic; handlers are
                    permanent employees.

             	    Training large numbers of seasonal/migrant farmworkers was seen as problematic by
                    grower because of language differences, time pressures to harvest, etc.

          Fancy Farms Strawberry Production
          •  February 23,1996,1:00 p.m.
          •  Tour of medium-sized strawberry production facility in Plant City, FL.
          •  EPA staff met with Chip Hinton of Florida Strawberry Growers Association; Carl Grooms,
             manager/owner of Fancy Farms; Fernando Cuevas, Sr. and Jr. of FLOC/AFL-CIO.
          •  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

             	    Concerns about REIs interfering with continuous harvesting of strawberries.

             	    Concerns about liability and nuisance suits. Recent experiences with inspections by
                    other federal agencies focused on issues perceived by growers as minor rather than
                    focusing on major issues or problems.

             	    Grower's observation that workers seem disinterested in training and central posting
                    of pesticide application information. Central posting in particular is burdensome to
                    maintain, especially when it appears not to be used by workers.

          Migrant Housing, Lake Apopka, FL
          •  February 23,1996, 5:00 p.m.
          •  EPA staff, accompanied by Tirso Moreno, Farm Workers Association of Florida, toured
             migrant housing.
          •  Among the issues discussed at the meeting was the concern raised by Tirso Moreno and
             others that the housing situation was overcrowded and substandard.
          Farmworkers, Apopka, FL
           •  February 23,1996, 6:00 p.m.
           •  EPA staff, accompanied by Tirso Moreno of the Farm Workers Association of Florida, met
             with seasonal and migrant farmworkers at the union hall in Apopka, Florida.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:
50  Florida

—    Concerns expressed about spraying when workers are in the fields; potential
       exposure risks for fern workers; greenhouse workers' exposure to wet pesticide
       residues on foliage; growers ordering workers to enter fields shortly after spraying;
       confusion regarding rights and protections provided by WPS.

—    Farm Workers Association of Florida representative proposed that farmworker
       organizations be allowed to act as enforcement agents and take action against

—    Concerns that doctors are misdiagnosing pesticide-related injuries and illnesses.

—    Questioning of the Agency's commitment to follow through on the information
       gained from these meetings, and a general plea for better working conditions.
                                                                        Florida  51

Written Comments
             "EPA Must Reduce Copper Hydroxide's Unnecessary Restricted-Entry-Interval"

             Bobby F. McKown
             Florida Citrus Mutual

             Kevin Morgan
             Florida Farm Bureau Federation (2)

             Charles H. Matthews, Jr.
             Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association

             W. Gregg Hartt
             Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc.

             Smith & Johns, Inc.

             James T. Hinkle, Sr.
             Smoak Groves, Inc.

             Robert R. Roberson
             Tran Trex Foliage
 52  Florida


                                    MAR   8  19i
    EPA Must Reduce Copper Hydfoxide^s Unnecessary

The WPS requires all copper hydroxide products, regardless of
documented toxicity,  to have a 48-hour restricted-entry-interval (REI).

A 48-hour REI is unnecessary and unjustified given the safety
characteristics of copper hydroxide and its long history of use in the field
without incident in Florida.

EPA says it based the 48-hour REI on California incident monitoring
data.  However, dried copper hydroxide has posed no known hazard to
agricultural workers entering treated fields over many years of use in

All other copper compounds have lower REFs than copper hydroxide
while data on file  with the Agency demonstrate nearly  identical toxicity.

The other copper  compounds being used instead of copper hydroxide,
solely because of the  unreasonable REI established by the WPS (copper
oxychloride, copper count-N, and tribasic copper), all have comparable
safety risks but are less effective and require higher overall application
rates to obtain equivalent disease control.

Copper hydroxide is a necessary tool in the efficient production of many
crops grown in Florida.

EPA should reduce the copper hydroxide REI to that of the other copper
compounds so growers can choose the  most  efficient management tool
based upon field conditions, not on an  arbitrary REI.

The copper hydroxide REI should be no more than 24  hours.

Griffin, Agtrol, Cuproquim, and the  Florida Fruit and  Vegetable
Association have offered to meet with EPA's Bill Jordan, in Washington,
to express the urgent  need to reduce  the copper hydroxide REI.  This
matter needs to be resolved immediately. Copper hydroxide is a very
valuable tool that has  become unusable for growers because  of the
unnecessary and arbitrary REI established by EPA in the WPS.


     Florida   Citrus  m  Mutual
                 TELEPHONE(8I3)682-IIII •  P.O. BOX 89 • LAKELAND, FLORIDA 338O2
mcunvE vice PMSBCTT
                             February 23, 1996
         Ms.  Lynn R.  Goldman, M.D.
         U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
         401 "M" Street S.W.
         Washington,  DC 20460   •

         Dear Dr. Goldman:

         It was  indeed  a pleasure to have you  and  other  members  of
         your EPA team visit Florida for the purpose of conducting a
         workshop on the Federal  EPA Worker's Protection Standards.

         Florida Citrus Mutual, a voluntary cooperative association
         whose  active  membership consists of  11,867  Florida  citrus
         growers,  advances  its  comments  relative  to the  Workers
         Protection  Standard meeting held  at  the Noro Mayo  Citrus
         Building, Winter Haven, Florida.on February 22, 1996 at 7:00

         Florida  Citrus  Mutual  respectfully  'requests,  that  the
         Environmental Protection Agency give serious consideration to
         the idea of amending the Worker's Protection Standards in two
         instances in particular.

         The two instances are:  Restricted entry intervals  (REI)  and
         the time f rames_;related.1.ta:M^^^^                   _ Citrus
         MuEual"believes that  climatic conditions has a significant
         impact on time df re-entry,  and that data should indicate and
         demonstrate that restricted entry intervals  could be reduced
         substantially  for  Florida  citrus.    Florida Citrus  Mutual
         further believes that timely decontamination time frames in
         most  instances could  coincide  with  the  restricted  entry

         We  are hopeful that you and your staff found the  tour of the
         Alcoma  Packing,   Inc.  facility  to ' be  iriformative_  and
         demonstrated the  s-irm-i f-i nant: nrocrress  the  Florida citrus
         growing industry
             the  significant  progress  the Florida
growing  a-iu-iustry  has  made in  its  use  and  handling of
pesticides and its processing of quality citrus juices.

Ms. Lynn R. Goldman,  M.D.
February 23,  1996
Page Two	
If I can be of any additional assistance,  do not  hesitate to
call this office.  Warm regards.
                                .  McKown
                               ive Vice President/CEO

Florida Fruit &
Vegetable Association
                                                                          4401 E. Colonial Drive
                                                                          Post Office Box 140155
                                                                      Orlando, Florida 32814-0155
                                                                (407) 894-1351 • Fax (407) 894-7840
                                                                    John C. Morris, President
                                                                Glenn R..Rogers, Vice President
                                                          Michael J. Stuart, Executive Vice President
                                 March 11, 1996
                                                    	Written Comments from
Ms. Jeanne Keying
Field Operations Division (7506C)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

Re: National Dialogue on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS)
       Florida Meeting

Dear Ms. Keying:

       The Florida Fruit & Vegetable  Association (FFVA)  appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the WPS. The WPS is a far-reaching new regulation which has added a significant
burden on Florida's fruit and vegetable growers.

       FFVA is a voluntary grower association which represents the majority of Florida's fruit
(including citrus),  vegetable and sugar  cane production.  All totaled, these  three industries
represented over $3.5 billion in farmgate value during 1995.

       FFVA has been involved in the re-write of EPA's WPS since the negotiated rule making
approximately 10 years  ago.  FFVA also provided detailed comments on the proposed rule.
FFVA has provided numerous educational opportunities for Florida's agricultural industry over
the past 7 years. FFVA responds to grower WPS questions on almost a daily basis.  Finally,
FFVA offers an EPA approved worker training program for the membership's growers.

 Ms. Jeanne Keying
 March 11, 1996
 Page 2

       There are five general areas in which we would like to comment.  These general areas
 have been identified based upon grower comments over the last two years.   The five areas

         1)    Extremely complicated rule that is difficult to comprehend and comply with;

         2)    Providing decontamination facilities  for 30, days beyond an expired Restricted
              Entry  Interval (RET)  is  expensive and unnecessary based  upon  Florida
              environmental conditions and Florida's history of pesticide exposure incidences;

         3)    Liability chain from the farm worker to the owner;

         4)    Confusion regarding the responsibility in the exchange of information; and,

         5)    Impact of REI extensions for extremely important pesticides.

The following summarizes our grower's problems with each area. A proposed change to correct
these problems is also provided.
       Extremely Complicated Rule that is Difficult to Comprehend and Comply

       Previous to the new WPS  regulations, WPS  involved four important and easy to
understand provisions which were printed on one page of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Today a grower must read and comprehend approximately 442 pages.  This large number of
pages consist of the following:

       Pesticide label (Metolachlor as an example, EPA Reg. No. 100-673) ....   71 pages

       WPS (August 21, 1992)	   64 pages

       How to Comply Manual (July 1993) 	  149 pages

       WPS Revision (January 11, 1995)	;   33 pages

       WPS Revision (September 29, 1995)	   10 pages

       EPA WPS Question and Answer (March 15, 1995)	  144 pages

       GRAND TOTAL	  441 pages
                       Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
                     4401 E. Colonial Drive P.O. Box 140155, Orlando, Fla., 32814

Ms. Jeanne Keying
March 11, 1996
Page 3

The statement that growers do not need to comprehend all 441 pages is not correct.  In order to
comply with WPS growers must comprehend all 441 pages because an inspector or a worker's
lawyer will hold the grower responsible for all 441 pages.

       Because of the voluminous pages of WPS regulations, the WPS is extremely complicated.
This complication makes the WPS not only difficult to comprehend, but also difficult to comply
       An indication of the difficulty growers are experiencing with the complexity of WPS is
the amount of time growers are having  to set aside in order to comply with WPS. Larger farms
must designate at least one employee to handle WPS compliance. Smaller farms have noted that
25% to 50% of a manager's time is spent complying with WPS regulations. As Florida growers
are "price takers" and not "price setters" for the products that they  grow,  WPS is  having a
negative impact on our growers' bottom line.  Employees who are responsible for WPS are not
assisting in producing the crop, but, are considered overhead that U.S. farms must absorb which
makes our grower less  competitive in a global market.
Recommendation #1:
Revise WPS  to remove complexity and boil down into six to
twelve easy to understand rules.
            Not Necessary to Provide Decontamination Facilities Beyond REI

       WPS requires that employers provide decontamination facilities for 30 days after the
expiration of an REI. Under Florida's growing conditions, this 30 day requirement is unnecessary
for several reasons.  First, Florida climate is considered semi-tropical.  This means that our
temperature and rainfall are relatively high as  compared to the rest of the country.  In fact,
Florida annually receives between 55 to 65 inches of rainfall. Also, almost every day the relative
humidity reaches 100%.   These environmental conditions  results in the rapid breakdown of
pesticides.  Second, FDACS has reviewed their data base on pesticide exposures incidences and
they have told FFVA that there are no pesticide related cases of human illnesses after the
expiration of an REI.  The only problems associated with worker exposure have been when
workers re-enter a  field before the expiration  of an REI.   This was the  case  in the highly
publicized Goodson Farms incident.

       Many people  suggest that the reason Florida's human exposure incidents are low is
because Florida does not have a good reporting system. This is not true! Physicians are required
by law to report all  potential pesticide exposures to the state. Most physicians are aware of this
law as FDACS has many times mailed out this information and FDACS employees regularly give
educational presentations to state-wide meetings regarding the reporting law.
                        Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
                       4401 E. Colonial Drive P.O. Box 140155, Orlando, Fla., 32814

Ms. Jeanne Keying
March 11, 1996
Page 4

       It is our understanding that the "plus 30 days" provisions were added to WPS as a result
of the review of California data. FLORIDA IS NOT CALIFORNIA.  If California has problems
dealing with worker exposure to pesticides for 30 days beyond the REI, then deal v/ith California.
The rest of the country, in particular states with humid climates like Florida, should not have to
be burdened with additional regulations because there have been reports of pesticide poisonings
in an arid state like California.

       Decontamination facilities  are expensive, particularly when they must be provided for 30
days beyond an expired REI.  The way this part of the regulation is worded, all employees who
work in a field must be provided with a decontamination facility. This means that all cultivation
tractors, all worker vehicles, and/or all fields must have an operational decontamination facility
throughout the  production season.   Estimates from some  of  Florida's larger  farms for
decontamination facilities is $70,000  annually.
Recommendation #2:
Eliminate requirement for decontamination facilities beyond the
expiration of an REI.
           Liability Chain From the Farm Worker to the Owner is Too Broad

       The notion that the owner of a fanning enterprise is ultimately responsible for WPS
compliance does not provide responsibility in the appropriate place.  Also, in many instances, the
owner has no control over die day to day operation of the farm.  There are numerous instances
in Florida where the owner resides in another state. In many instances the owner is unaware
what pesticides are used, when pesticides are used, and when workers are in the field.  It is not
fair to place WPS responsibility on owners unless they are involved in the day to day activities
of the farming operation.

       Since the beginning of FIFRA, the burden of responsibility has been on the applicator of
the pesticide.   .The person  who makes  the  pesticide  application or oversees,;the pesticide
application knows  what pesticide  is  used,  what are the  pesticide  label restrictions,  and
when/where the pesticide was used. The applicator is the individual who is knowledgeable about
pesticide use and, therefore, should be responsible for WPS  since WPS is a label-drive regulation.

       Workers also have an important role, if not the most important role, in WPS compliance.
All the training, knowledge of WPS, providing PPE, etc. can not result in the worker being any
safer unless the worker takes on the responsibility.  As a  policeman gives a speeding ticket to
the person  driving the car and not to the person who taught him how to  drive, so must WPS
enforcement apply responsibility to workers if all  provisions of the law  are provided by the
                        Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
                      4401 E. Colonial Drive P.O. Box 140155, Orlando, Fla., 32814

 Ms. Jeanne Keying
 March 11, 1996

 Recommendation #3:
Better define responsibility to the pesticide applicator or the person
overseeing day to day operation  of the farm and provide more
incentive to workers to demonstrate their responsibility.
         Confusion Regarding the Responsibility in the Exchange of Information

       The responsibility in the exchange or flow of information is somewhat related to the
 previous issue.  WPS requires that several different people on a farm communicate with each
 other. In some instances, these people have had very little contact with each other. Applicators
'must comprehend the pesticide label's WPS information (REI, notification, etc.), then relay this
 information to the farm workers.

       As is the case with liability, exchange of information is difficult for absentee owners or
 farm managers who have little day to day interaction with the farm. Also, if information is made
 available,  is it  the  responsibility of the applicator to see that all farm workers have this
 information?  Again, farm  workers must take  on some  responsibility in the exchange  of
 information. It  is practically impossible for owners, pesticide applicators, etc. to be personally
 responsible for making sure that every farm worker knows about every pesticide application.  If
 owners or applicators make information  available, then the farm worker should have the
 responsibility to obtain and use this information.
 Recommendation #4
Better define each  parties responsibility  in  the exchange of
                          REI Extensions Impacting Production

        During WPS's most recent revision (Part 170), very little attention was provided to Part
 156 because it primarily was  written for registrants to  review and comment.  Many-bf the
 sections in Part 156 were extremely technical to the extent that  most people outside of the
 registrant community understood the potential impact of the revisions.  Also, even if growers
 understood Part 156, growers did not have the basic pesticide data to determine the impact on
 the end use restrictions to be placed on the label. In fact, EPA  could not even tell us which or
 how many pesticides would have increased REI's.

        Part 156 had very little impact on registrants in terms of economic impact.  While all
 labels had to be revised, all a registrant had to do was add the generic WPS statement and follow
 Part  156's  "decision tree" in regard to  PPE, REI,  etc.   After the  labels were updated, the
 registrants' responsibility was achieved.
                         Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
                       4401 E. Colonial Drive P.O. Box 140155, Orlando, Fla., 32814

 Ms. Jeanne Keying
 March 11, 1996
 Page 6

        Significantly different from the registrant's responsibility, growers must comply every
 working day with the use restrictions on the label.  Some of the changed use restrictions have
 had a significant impact on growers effecting every working day. For example, FFVA submitted
 data and information for an exception to the federal label REI restrictions for chlorothanonil and
 copper hydroxide on several vegetable crops to reduce the REI from 48 hours to 24 hours. EPA
 denied this request  Some crops must be harvested  on a regular basis at the height of their
 maturity in order to be shipped across the country. Also, many crops require other types of hand
 labor (hoeing, etc.) at regular intervals. As high pest pressure and adverse weather conditions
 are added to this dilemma yields are lost just because of an increased REI.

        One way growers are coping with the increased REI's is to apply additional pesticides.
 In cases where scouting, pest pressure, beneficial populations, etc. were all important factors in
 determining whether or not to apply pesticides, the increased REI's causes growers not to risk
 losses due to pests and go ahead and apply additional pesticides. For example, a pest is present
 in the field and the harvest data or cultural practice (hoeing, etc.) date is approaching where the
 use of a reduced rate could possibly control the pest.  However, with a 48 hour REI the grower
 can no longer risk not controlling the pest. The  increased REI's are having the opposite effect
 that EPA  had intended in that in certain instances more pesticides are being used as a result  of
 the revised WPS.
Recommendation #4:
Reduce REI's, particularly for labor intensive crops, and/or approve
new products which control hard to  control pests  with shorter
       FFVA appreciates EPA's willingness to review the WPS. With only a few minor changes,
EPA can make WPS more efficient for growers while maintaining the same high standard for
worker protection.

       As a side note, FFVA has a subsidiary which offers Florida growers worker compensation
insurance.   In  fact,  FFVA's  worker compensation company is Florida's largest provider of
agricultural workers compensation.  When one inquires what types of hazards they are concerned
about,  pesticides fall to the lowest priority.  Important hazards to  farm workers are accidents,
back injuries, etc.  There are very, very few chemical exposure cases that have even been
reported over the last  ten years.  Based upon their data and FDACS reporting data,  worker
exposure to pesticides is not an important worker hazard in Florida.  Part of this excellent record
is the  value employers place on their  employees and the excellent educational opportunities
available from the University of Florida and FDACS. With such a positive pesticide exposure
record, our  growers  became  extremely frustrated trying to comply with such  a complicated
regulation.  Any efforts EPA can provide to streamline WPS will enable growers to spend more
resources on more important work place hazards, reduce pesticide use, and allow growers to
remain competitive in a global market.
                        Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
                       4401 E. Colonial Drive P.O. Box 140155, Orlando, Fla., 32814

Ms. Jeanne Keying
March 11, 1996

       Again, thank you for seriously considering our comments and if you have any questions
or if we can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
                                        Charles H. Matthews, Jr.
                                        Assistant Director
                                        Environmental and Pest Management Division
                        Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
                      4401 E. Colonial Drive P.O. Box 140155, Orlando, Fla., 32814

P. O. Box 147030, Gainesville, Florida 32614-7030 Telephone (904) 378-1321
                                                     MAR   8 (996

                                                   QPP PUBLIC DOCKET
February 19, 1996

Ms. Jeanne Keying
Field Operations Division
Office of Pesticide Programs (7506c)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Hey ing:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and its
implementation.  During my twelve years with the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, I have
seen few rules that have created the magnitude of problems for growers that the WPS has.
I'm sure you will hear, and receive by mail, many personal examples of how WPS has
affected individual growers.     '

As you well know, when the new requirements of the WPS went into place there was no
information available for several months. This caused delays in farmers' effortslo educate
themselves about the WPS  and to decide how to implement the requirements into their
specific operations.  Florida Farm Bureau Federation was very concerned with the lack of
materials and joined forces with The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (FDACS), the University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(IFAS) and Extension to create and distribute various materials that would help growers in
their efforts to comply. Materials that have proven to be the  most popular are the Florida
Farm Bureau Record Keeping Booklet (with over 5,000 copies sold), the WPS Compliance
Kit, and the WPS Inspection form.  Growers really like the inspection form because it's the
same one used by FDACS  inspectors and can be used as a checklist when preparing for a
compliance inspection.  The Pesticide  Review Council asked us to create a  WPS "Duties and
Responsibilities Form" for  citrus growers that would allow them  to formally divide WPS
responsibilities among the many people involved in  the production of citrus. As other
materials were made available by EPA, FDACS and others made every effort to distribute
materials and begin the education process.  It is still a slow process, especially for training
materials.  One reason is because of the sheer number of farm workers and the volume of
materials needed to train them.

Even though we are not pleased with many of the requirements of the WPS, I believe the
current system of enforcement is an excellent example of how government agencies should
operate when seeking compliance; agencies should not become addicted to a system built
around the immediate levying of excessive monetary penalties for noncompliance.  Agencies
that issue excessive fines sometimes find themselves trying to negotiate amounts of
settlements with full knowledge that the penalized party  will be inclined to settle because a
settlement is often less expensive than a trial.  I understand that under  the current system,
FDACS conducted 518 inspections in a two and a half month period last spring.  Only 196

Ms Jeanne Keying
February 19, 1996
page 2

had partial non-compliance areas. One hundred of these 196 were general posting errors,
which were easily corrected within a few days.  Considering the difficulties mentioned
above, this is an outstanding effort that we are proud of:  62% compliance the very first

Farmers are making valiant efforts -to comply with the WPS; but the complexity of the
standard has overwhelmed them  in Florida and across the nation.  Not only were we required
to learn the contents of a 141 page "How to Comply11 manual and a 85 page interpretive
guide,  we had to mesh these requirements with a variety of crop and chemical management
practices for over 200 crops grown in this state.  The expenses and disruption caused by
these changes are still causing major problems. Common sense tells me that if this  much
paperwork is needed to explain what is required of growers, then it's too complicated.  One
of my greatest concerns is that even though compliance efforts are currently going well, the
inability of every farmer to comply with every aspect of the WPS may provide advocates
with technicalities that could be used to launch civil  suits against growers, and in doing so
become the enforcement arm of the Worker Protection Standard.

Kevin Morgan
Asst. Director
Agricultural Policy


                 P. O. Box 147030, Gainesville, Florida 32614-7030 Telephone (904) 378-1321
 March 13, 1996
 Dr. Lynn Goldman, Asst. Administrator
 Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
 U. S Environmental Protection Agency
 401 M Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20460

 Dear Dr. Goldman:

 Thank you for holding the public comment forum on the Worker Protection Standard, February 22 in
 Winter Haven, Florida.  It is vitally important that all parties effected by this rule have an opportunity
 to express concerns and identify problem areas. Due to time requirements, we limited our comments on
 the Worker Protection Standard and would like to submit the following into the record.

 During the meeting, questions were raised about the accuracy of the number of pesticide-related illnesses
 reported by physicians in Florida.  Enclosed is a copy of Florida Statute/Chapter 487 (2) that states "It
 is also the  express intent of this section to require all physicians to report ail pesticide-related
 illnesses or injuries to the nearest county health department." I believe we do the medical profession
 a disservice by questioning their willingness to report pesticide related illnesses. They have taken an oath
 to provide medical care to all and would be remiss if they neglected reporting symptoms of pesticide
 exposure.   Dr.  Roger Inman, Director  of Environmental Toxicology/Department of Health  and
 Rehabilitative Services (HRS),  assured me that HRS has been providing physician training throughout
 the state to  increase awareness of pesticide-related illness and injury.  Dr. Inman has confirmed  that
 reporting of pesticide exposures is taking place and he attributes the small number of reports to the
 increased knowledge users  of pesticides have these days.  The fact that there are few reports, is; good
 news! The low number of pesticide related illness reports indicates that farmers and their employees are
 using pesticides safely.

 A reference was made regarding the Goodson Farms incident in 1989.  This particular incident shocked
 and  amazed  the  agricultural community  because of the flagrant disregard  for workers  health  and
 compliance with the existing rules.  The Florida agricultural industry initiated and passed legislation  that
 amended our existing pesticide law. This amendment provides for administrative fines for up to  $10,000
per violation.  Chapter 487.175 (l)(e) is enclosed for your information. For the farmworker advocates
 to continue to use the Goodson Farms incident as a current example is inaccurate.  Just as children should
 not have  to pay for the sins of the parents, Florida agriculture should not have to pay for one non-typical
action seven years ago.                                '

The  issuance, maintenance and use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment  (PPE)  are  also
concerns. All responsibility for PPE currently resides  with the farmer.   Growers must issue  the
appropriate safety equipment,  train workers in its use, maintain the equipment and enforce its use by the
employee. Part of this responsibility should be shared by the workers themselves. When farmers follow
label requirements and issue appropriate PPE, employees should at least be required to use it properly,
as they were trained.  If a grower issues an employee a respirator and trains him in its use, why shouldn't
that employee bear the responsibility of wearing it?  Farmers should not be put in the position of being
the enforcement arm of this rule.

Another concern for growers is the procedure for requesting modifications to the rule. When farmers
identify specific areas within the WPS that need adjustment they must work through the WPS working
group,  the body responsible, for sending recommendations for revisions to the  EPA.  This process is
quite long and cumbersome.- Decisions by the working group on simple changes like the size of warning
signs took over six months.. By the time final decisions are made, the growing season has passed and
farmers have already lost time and money.                             .•  ,  •
You identified another area that needs attention; consistency of REIs for similar .compounds.  An example
of this  inconsistency is Kocide and Copper.  Kocide is a common fungicide used in the production of
numerous vegetable crops.  Its main ingredient is copper hydroxide and it has a 48-hour REI.  Basic
copper, with the same active ingredient, has a' 12-hour REI.  These products should both have no more
than a  12-hour REI.  Nutritional coppers (very similar compounds) have BQ REI. We need  consistent
REIs for similar products to maintain the creditability of the rule and the Agency.

The time requkements for field decontamination  sites are also a problem.  Worker employers must
provide decontamination sites for 30 days after the REI, and if there is no REI for 30  days after the
application.  Under these requirements you could have decontamination sites throughout a field where
the 'crops have already been harvested.  It is also unnecessary to maintain decontamination sites for 30
days after the  REI for many low toxicity pesticides.   EPA should coordinate with other agencies to
achieve consistency between agencies who require field sanitation. Farmers are being confused by the
Florida was  one of many states that submitted a request for a reduction of the 48-hour REI to a 24-hour
REI for Chlorothalonil. We were denied. I understand that EPA is considering increasing the REI for
chlorothaloriil  to  96 hours.   If  this happens, EPA  will be promoting a de facto cancellation  of
chlorothalonil. Such a decision would put growers hi a tough position.  They would be forced to decide
between using  the product outside the label in order to save their crops or go out of business. Either way
they stand to lose. I encourage you not to push for extended REIs without reliable, scientific research
to warrant the increase.
Thank  you for the opportunity to express our concerns.  Any consideration you could provide would be
. most appreciated.
 Kevin Morgan, Asst. Director
 Agricultural Policy


 Enclosures '

     437,156 Governmental agencies. - All governmental
 agencies start be subject to 'the provisions of this chapter
 and rules adopted, under this-part.   Public applicators
 using or supervising the use of restricted-use, pesticides
 shall  be subject  to  examination  as  'provided  in s.
 487.044.' ..
     Hifcy,-t. 7. Mi 74-447;«. U,«. 7»71fe«, », oh. 8V31* •* «. 14. IS, oh. (2. .
 t«7<«.«, W, ac 92-119,
     487.1 S3S   Duties  of licensee with  raupect  to
 unlicensed  applicators ' .ind  mixer-loaders.  and  field'
 workers. -    '         • ' .'  "
 .   (1)  Each licensed applicator shall provide  to each
 unlicensed applicator or mixer-loader working under his'
 direct supervision adequate instruction and training  so
 that the applicator or mixer-loader understands the safety
 procedures Required for the;'pest!cldes that will be used.
 The applicator ormixer-kjader shall be given this training
 before handling restricted-use pesticides."  This training
 shall be set-ifcrth by the department by. rule and shall .
 include, but not bes raited tovthe safety procedures to be
• followed as specifie#.ori the:tebel; the safety clothing and
 equipment  .to' be worn;  'the. common  symptoms  of
 pesticide poisoning; the danger*, of eating,., drinking,  or
 smoking while handling pesticides; and where to obtain
 emergency medical treatment.   No  licensee snail be
 permitted to .provide direct supervision to more than 15
 unlicensed applicators or mixer-loaders at any given time.
     (2) • Prior to the entry of workers into a field, it shall
 b« tN resooflsTbility of the liee&ed applicator to assure
 that  the  worker's direct' supervisor  provides  an  oral:
 statement to the'workeVs, in language understood by the
 vyortsers, of the warning contained on the pesticide label
 with respect, to .any  pesticides that have  been used
        4,8-h.oui:. period.  ' •
                       ; m. XT. St. c*.- 9&11S.
    487.159 Damage or tojjury to property, animal, or
 person;, mandatory report of damage or Injury; time for
 liling; fallurt.to fil*. •
    (1» The person .claiming'' damage  or injury  to
 property, animal, or human beings from application of a
 pesticide  shall  file with the; department  a written'
 statement claiming damages, on' a form prescribed by the'
 department, -within 48 hours after the damage or injury
 becomes apparent:  The statement shall  contain,  but
 shall  not. be limited  to, . the  name  of  the person
 *?£**** , f ^'""nance «f any criminal or civil action.
    <2I It  is  the  duty 'of  any . licensee to  report
 .unreasonable adverse  effects 'on the environment or
  damage to property or injury' td a person as'ihe result of
  the application  of a restricted-use pesticide  by  the
 '. licensee or by an' applicator or mixer-loader under the
  licensee's direct supervision, if and when the licensee
  has knowledge of such damage 'or injury,  it is also the
  express intent of this section to require all physicians to-
  report all pesticide-related 'illnesses or injuries to  the
  nearest county health department, which will notify the'
  department  so that  tha department may -establish a-
  pesticide incident monitoring system within the Division
  of Agricultural Environmental Services.
      (2)  When damage to human beings/animals, plants,'
  or ether  property is  alleged to  have  been done,  the:
  claimant  shall  permit  licensee  and  the  licensee's
  representatives to observe within reasonable hours the
  alleged  damage  in .order that the  damage may be.
  examined.   The failure of  the  claimant  to permit.
 observation and examination of the alleged damage shall,
 automatically bar' the  claim against the licensee.
        T. . .. !«.«!. W.N7; «. «. 7*W: «. J. eh. *1-*Ue tm. t, V, », aft. ts-lffr-.
     487.160   Records;  report.  -  Licensed  .private
  applicators supervising 1 S or more unlicensed applicators
  or< mixer-loaders and  licensed public s'pplicatqns  and
  licensed commercial applicators shall maintain records as
  the department may determine by  rule with respect to
  the application of restricted pesticides, including, but not
  limited to. the type and quantity of pesticide, method of
  application, crop  treated,  and .dates and  location of
  application.   Other licensed  private applicators  shall
  maintain records as the department may determine by
  rule with respect  to  the date,  type, and. quantity of.
  restricted-use pesticides used.   Licensees shall keep
  records for a period  of .3  year* from date -of  the
  application of the pesticide .to which -the records refer;
  and shall furnish' to the department a copy of the f ecortf s
  upon  written wouest  by the  department.    This
  exemption  is subject to. the Open Government .Sunset
•  Review Act in accordance with s, 1 19.14;  Every third
 year, the department shall 'conduct a survey and compile
 a report oh restricted-use pesticides in this state. TWs
 report shall include, but. not 'be limited  to, types and
 quantities of  pesticides, methods, of application, crops.
 treated, and dates  and locations, of applteation; recorts
 of persons working under direct supervSsiorv'and reports.
 of misuse, damage, or injury.
     487.161  Examptionsv nonasrlcuftural p«st control
. and research. -           . •         •
     (1)  Any  person  duty licensed  or certified under
 chapter 482, or under the 'supervision: o.f chapter- '38S, is
 exempted from the licensing  provisions of this part.
     (2J  The  use  of  the'  antibiotic  oxytetracyelinft
 hydrochiorfde  for  the  purpose  of controlling, lethal.
 yellowing is exempted from the licensing provisions of
 this part.
     (3)  The personnel  of governmental,  university, or
 industrial research agencies are 'exempted!  fro.m the
 provisions of this part when doing applied research within

government, publish information and conduct short
courses  of instruction  in the  safe  use  and
application of pesticides for the purpose of carrying
out the provisions of this chapter.
   (21   The department may cooperate or enter
Into formal agreements with any other agency or
educational institution ' of  this  state  or  its
subdivisions or with any agency of any other state
or of  the Federal Government for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this chapter and of
securing uniformity of  regulations.

   487.171 Classification of  antifouling paint
containing organotin compounds as restricted-use
pesticides; prohibition  of distribution  and sale.-
  '  (1)   The department shall classify antifouling
paints containing organotin compounds having an
acceptable release rate as restricted-use pesticides
subject to the requirements  of this  chapter.
Antifouling -paints  containing  organotin having
acceptable release rates and sold in spray cans of
16 ounces avoirdupois weight or less for outboard
motor or lower unit  use  are  exempt  from the
restricted-use  pesticide classification requirement.
    (2)   The department shall initiate action under
chapter 120, to deny or cancel the registration of
antifouling paints containing organotin compounds
which do not have an acceptable release rate or do
not  meet  other"   criteria  established  by  the
department in accordance with this chapter.
    (3)   Distribution,  sale, and use of antifouling
paints  containing  organotin  compounds   with
acceptable release rates shall be limited to dealers
and applicators licensed  by  the  department in
accordance with this chapter, to distribute, sell, or
use restricted-use  pesticides.  Such paint may be
applied only by licensed applicators and may be
applied only to vessels which exceed 25 meters in
length or which have aluminum hulls.
    (4)    A person other than a paint manufacturer
may  not sell or deliver to, or purchase or receive
from, another person at  retail or wholesale any
substance  containing  tin  compounds  for  the
purpose  of adding  such substance  to, paint to
create an antifouling paint.

    487.172 Educational   program.--The
department shall develop a program to educate and
inform antifouling paint applicators, vessel owners,
and interstate and intrastate paint manufacturers
and  distributors   in  the  state  as  to   the
characteristics  and   hazards  associated  with
organotin  compounds in antifouling  paints and of
state laws restricting their use.

    487.175  Penalties;   administrative   fine;
    (1}    In addition to any other penalty provided
in this chapter, when the department finds any
person,  applicant, or licensee  has violated any
provision of this chapter or rule adopted under this
chapter, it may enter an order imposing any one or
  more of the following penalties:
    (a)  Denial of an application for licensure.
    .(bl  Revocation or suspension of license.
    (c)  Issuance of a warning letter.
    (d)  Placement of the licensee on probation for
  a specified period of time and subject to conditions
  the  department  may specify by  rule, including
  requiring   the   licensee .to  attend   continuing
  education  courses, to  demonstrate competency
  through a  written or practical examination, or to
  work  under, the  direct supervision  of another
    {e}  Imposition of an administrative fine not to
  exceed  $10,000 for  each  violation.    When
  imposing   any   fine  under  this  paragraph,   the
  department shall consider the degree and extent of
  harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying
  the  d-mage, the amount of  money the violator
  benefited  from by noncompliance,  whether  the
  violation   was  committed  willfully,   and   the
  compliance record of the violator.
     (2)  Any person who violates any provision of
  s. 487.031 or rules  adopted pursuant thereto
  commits a misdemeanor of the second  degree and
  upon conviction is punishable as  provided in ss.
  775.082  and  775.083.     For  a  subsequent
•  violation, such person commits a misdemeanor of
  the  first degree and upon conviction is punishable
  as provided in ss. 775.082 and 775.083.
     (3)  In addition to the remedies provided in this
  chapter and notwithstanding the existence of  any
  adequate remedy at law, the department may bring
  an  action  to enjoin  the violation  or  threatened
  violation of any provision of this chapter,  or  rule
  adopted under this chapter, in the circuit court of
  the county in  which the violation occurred or is
  about  to  occur.     Upon  the • department's
  presentation   of   competent  and   substantial
  evidence to the court of the violation or threatened
'  violation,  the  court  shall  immediately issue  the
  temporary or permanent injunction sought by the
  department. The injunction shall be issued without
  bon<2. A sing's act ir. violation of any prosUicn ji
  this chapter shall be sufficient to authorize  the
  issuance of an injunction.


CITRUS GROWERS / 6419 U-S- Highway 27 South • Sebring, FL 33870 • Phone: (941) 385-8091 • FAX: 385-5356
                                    April 2, 1996

 Jeanne Keying
 Field Operation Division
 Environmental Protection Agency
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Washington, D.C. 20460

 Dear Ms, Keying:

      In response to the EPA public workshop on Worker Protection
 Safety standards, held in Winter Haven last month, our board and
 members offer these observations and suggestions.

      1.  Paperwork—As industry representatives correctly
 outlined at the workshop, paperwork requirements to meet WPS
 regulations have increased from a single page to more than
 400 pages.   We suggest EPA and the Florida departments
 responsible for enforcing WPS regulations find common
 denominators on which to prepare a single form for growers that
 can be shared by regulatory agencies and personnel.

      2.  Interpretation of Rules—Recently,  a FDACS inspector
 told growers that each pesticide handler is required to have a
 personal emergency eyeflush water kit on their person.  In the
 EPA manual,  Section 3, page 31,  the Emergency Eyeflushing section
 states in part,  "—The emergency eyeflush water must be
 immediately accessible.  For example,  it could be carried by the
 handler or  be on a vehicle the handler is using.   The emergency
 eyeflush water may be the water at the decontamination site if
 the decontamination site is immediately accessible."

      In this case,  the inspector required far  stricter methods
 than EPA regulations  and would require thousands  of dollars be
 spent by employers in this county alone,  to  meet  that inspector's
 interpretation of the regulation.

      Inspectors  should be discouraged  from pursuing a personal
 agenda  to include setting standards in excess  of  those required
 by  law  or regulation.   The cost  of administrative hearings and
 litigation  limit legal access  to growers  to  correct regulatory
 excess  by inspectors.   it is incumbent on regulatory agencies  to
 ensure  that  inspectors do not  exceed authority to order costly
 changes  simply because the inspector believes  stricter standards
 of  safety regulation  are  required  than those in place.

Page two
Jeanne Keying
April 2, 1996

     3.  Central Posting—Obviously this is a rule developed by
someone behind a desk who has not been in agricultural settings
very often, if ever.  For most growers, it is not uncommon to
have citrus in many counties, sections and blocks.  There is no
central reporting point for workers to gather each day for .daily
announcements and postings.  The workers will report to the area
they are working in for the day, and the area will change often.

     A more realistic approach would be to adopt the enclosed
form, already approved by Florida authorities, which outlines
responsibility for each area and allows the delegation of the
posting and warning to the supervisor in charge of each work
group.  It allows a supervisor who is with a work crew regularly
be responsible for providing the information, accomplishes what
EPA wishes in disseminating safety information and establishes a
chain of responsibility for meeting the standards.

     4.  Training—EPA changed standards which required employers
to complete WPS training in five working days, instead of a
previously approved fifteen working days.

     The five day requirement is not a reasonable period when all
factors of training are also considered.  In addition to WPS, an
employee is expected to be able to learn specific skills about
the new job, the locations of work sites, company requirements
and other necessary functions of the job in the same period.

     It is advisable, and certainly better for a new employee, to
be allowed a longer period to complete WPS training.  We would
suggest a return to the fifteen day training period.

     5.  Reentry Requirements—Standards-have: been a constantly
moving target with a consistent lack of scientific study to back
up the changes.

     The standard of "until dry" is used in virtually all
applications, not involving commercial agriculture.  Homeowners
who spread fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and other compounds
use the "until dry" standard.  Commercial applicators post signs
on lawns that indicate an "until dry" standard.

     Some applications now require a four to forty-eight hour
wait before entering an area.  There is no scientific evidence
for advancing this standard, only anecdotal testimony from union
representatives.  Citrus operations are forced to more costly
operations as a result of the increased reentry standards without
a significantly increased safety factor for workers being shown.

Page Three
Jeanne Keying
April 2, 1996

     6.  Respirators — One of the requirements which draws the ire
of ag operators is the one which requires closed tractor
operators in air-conditioned comfort to wear a respirator mask
while application procedures are underway.

     The respirator not only offers no protection in a covered
tractor scenario, but actually may inhibit safety by limiting
visibility for tractor operators.

     Many of the reentry requirements also stem from crop
specific problems in one state which do not manifest themselves
in other states.

     Chemical applications vary from crop to crop.  Lettuce
problems in California do not necessarily translate to problems
for citrus in Florida.

     The one standard fits all policy for reentry is not
effective in promoting safety or financially feasible for ag
operators .

     Unless there is compelling scientific evidence that
specifically targets a compound requiring a standard other than
"until dry," those wait requirements are inappropriate.

     Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in this
process.  Our members would be pleased to discuss any of these
points with you in further detail.
                                   W. Gregg Hartt

                       Worker Protection Standard  - Duties and Responsibilities
k Ownen
Phone: ( )
2, Caretaker:
Phone: ( )
3^ Harvesten
Phone: ( )
Phone: ( )
Individual *:
In/brmotion at a Central Location:
Safety Poster
Medical Facility Information
Pesticide Application Information
Information Location as Required
Pesticide Safety Training:
Assures worker training
Assures handler training
Conducts training, if needed
Provides Pesticide Safety Sheet

Duties for workers:
Restrictions During Application:
Workers kept out of treated area
during application and REI

Early Entry Exceptions:
Early entry protection/training provided
PPE provided according to level
PPE cleaned and maintained
Notice About Applications:
Oral warnings
Posted warning signs

Duties for Wo
Q a a a
a Q a Q
a a Q a
a a Q a
a a Q Q
a a a a
a a a a
City/ State/ Zip:
City/ State/Zip:
City/ State/ Zip:
City/ State/ Zip:
rkers and Handlers
Additional Duties:
Provide decontamination sites for handlers'
Provide decontamination sites for workers
Information exchange
Emergency assistance provided for handlers
Emergency assistance provided for workers

Duties for Handlers:
Application Restrictions/Monitoring:
Sight/voice contact at 2 hour intervals
Have access and understand labeling
Safety check of handling equipment

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE):
PPE provided according to labeling
PPE maintenance
Provided pesticide free area
Disposal of contaminated PPE
Avoiding heat stress





We have met and agreed to the above delegation of responsibilities under the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR Part 170.
                 1. Owner Signature/Date
2. Caretaker Signature/Date
                 3. Harvester Signature/Date
4. Other/Date
                  Reorder: Florida Farm Rnrpau • Ao PnltVv • PO
                                                                   . rj,;r,-c.,Jll» FT
                                                                                       . ie->/ •>•?<« i CT7


A(Vc   /^v .tjjrc.    3 f
/^      '       I   X
•rev-" ^r

 •*N  T-<
, / Mf -d" etfffrj. folds  ****
 m-  f   //>*
'\L  * |=>ra>-<> * "--y
                               WB Rd.

  Susan H. Smoak
 Choumon of lh» Boot d

 John F. Smoak, Jr.

 Edward L. Smoak
V>co Pioudonl and Sectelocy
Smoak Groves, Inc.
     1025 County Road 17 North
     i Lake Placid. Florida 33852

          (813) 465-2561
         FAX (813) 465-7301

       February 22,  1996

            Environmental Protection Agency
            Attn:  Jeanne Keying
            Field Operation Division
            401 M Street, SW
            Washington, D.C. 20460
            Re:  EPA Sponsored Public Meeting
                     to discuss  the
                 Federal Worker  Protection Standard
            Dear Ms. Keying:
                 The  following  outline  consists of  the areas in the Worker
            Protection  Standard that we here at Smoak Groves, Inc., as well as the
            members of  the  Highlands County Citrus  Growers Association feel need
            attention.   Some sections of  the standard are too vague, some are too
            strict, and some are just plain unrealistic as presently written.  I
            do want to  make note here that not all  the sections of  the WPS are in
            these categories.   Some in  fact have  real value to them.

                 I don't believe any grower would dispute that employee safety is
            near the  top of the list, but when laws are written that only add
            confusion and cost  to our dailey operation causing growers to throw
            up their  hands  in complete  frustation,  it is time to stop; back up
            and  take  another look.  That's why meetings such as this one could
            have a great impact on correcting  these problems.  This can be accom-
            plished if  all  sides .will make the effort to work in unity for the best
            considerations  for  everyone.  We all  must work with a spirit of

                 Having said this,  here is our outline:

                 Harvesting - trying to meet all  the requirements in this section
                               is unrealistic
                      A.  Central Posting Area
                      B.  Training
                      C.  Oral  or Posted Warning
                      D.  Who really is responsible for what  in  this part of  the

                      When a company is structured like  ours  (Smoak Groves,  Inc.)
                       it is impossible to have just one  or  even  a  few  central posting

Page 2

Jeanne Keying,  EPA,  WPS
          areas.   We have  groves  in  three (3)  counties and all our
          crews are contract  crews.   The do not come to our central
          locations, in  fact  some of  the crew  members don't live in
          our town.  The turn over in laborers is very large and the
          training of  the  new ones difficult,  if not impossible.

     Decontamination Sites -  certain  sections  in this part of the
                             Standard are very vague and too strict.
              Misconception of  Eye Water  - How much?   Where located??
              What  really  is needed?  A five  gallon pail with soap and
              towels or something as complex  as a portable shower
              with  adequate water as well as  all the  other requirements

     REI's - Many of these are  too long and some should probably have none
          A.  Too restricted (work needs  to be done)

     Costs • because growers are not sure  what is required to keep record
            of all  the differentsections  of the standard, no one is sure
            what they should or should  not buy.  Some  growers (Smoak Groves
            is one  of then) have spent  thousands of dollars.  We have
            purchased a computer, a computer  program,  decontamination kits,
            and a lot of training supplies.   Now since there are still so
            many vague areas in the standard,  we wonder if it was really

     There are other areas in the WPS that could be written clearer, or at
     least should be looked at, and I'm certain that  by the time you have
     gone to all the scheduled open meetings  these other questions will
     have been addressed.

     My real concern, as I hope everyone's is,  is that after all this
     information has been compiled IT WILL BE STUDIED AND CONSIDERED!!
     I would hope that it will not end  up buried on someone's desk,  with
     nothing accomplished.

     I applaud you  for your effort and  look forward to some positive results.
     James T. Hinkle Sr.
     Safety Director
     Smoak Groves, Inc.

  ran Irex foliage
Ponkan Road • P.O. Box 549 • Plymouth, Florida 32768-0549
Phone (407) 886-8944 • TOLL FREE 1-800-327-6952
               Fax #407-886-4558
   MAR    8  1996

           One of the mam effects of the foliage industry by the new W.P.S. win be in shipping our product.

           Most Florida foliage is sold out of state. It is shipped by common carriers. The truck fines have regularly
          scheduled shipping days for major metropolitan areas of the country. (Example; Mort-New York area,
          Tues.-Chicago area, Wed.-New England states, etc...)  As a result of the schedule we ship everyday. This
          means we have people in our greenhouses everyday pulling orders.

           During slow sales times we maybe able to get customers who ship on light shipping days to give us their
          orders eady which wffl give us one day a week to use pesticides in the greenhouses. However, during the
          winter and spring seasons mis will create real problems.

           We use three types of pesticide programs:

          1.) Major sprays-wMch the whole nursery is sprayed at one time. We presently do this on Saturday, so that
          we may use chemicals with a 48 hour re-entry if needed.

          2.) Spot sprays-these are used when we have spot infestations or a trouble spot. Usually confined to small
          areas but maybe in three different greenhouse ranges.

          3.) Drenching-att newly potted plants have to have a soil drench after potting to control soil borne
          pathogens. These plants wffl be scattered through-out the nursery.

            We can do major spraying on Saturdays. This means that spot sprays and drenching must occur during
          the week. Since we cant spray after temperatures reach 80 degrees without danger of getting foliar damage,
          we are left with a very small spray window, here in Florida summertime temperatures are in the 80°s from

            With the presentre-entry standards we have been unable to determine how to manage our operation. We
          have to ship by the carriers schedule to get to the market place, but can't go into the greenhouses for 12
          hours if we have used Clorox to clean sidewalks or used chemicals in that house, which may cover 3-4
          acres. Yet if we dont control the insects and disease the market wont accept our product

            Ifs a catch 22 situation and any relief we might get would be appreciated.
           Robert R.





3.   Mississippi
       Public Meeting:

          Stoneville, MS
                April 10, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •     47 participants (47 registered), including 11 speakers

       Site Visits and Small Grottp Discussions:

          Dr. George Furr, Clarksdale, MS
                April 9,1996, 4:30 p.m.
          •     EPA staff met with Dr. Furr, retired physician; Frank Chiles, crop consultant.

          Tutweiler Clinic, Tutweiler, MS
                April 9,1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •     EPA staff met with Sister Ann Brooks, MD.

          Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS
          *     April 11,1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •     EPA staff met with Dan Branton, Delta Council; Dr. John Jenkins and William Timmers,
                USDA-Agriculture Research Service; Robert McCarty and other staff, Mississippi
                Department of Agriculture and Commerce; and Mike Blankenship, Mississippi Farm

          Edwards Flying Service, Leland, MS
                April 11, 1996, 11:00 a.m.
          •      Tour of the aerial application facility.
          •      EPA staff met with Mark and John Edwards, owners, and one worker.

          Farmworker Meeting, McGehee, AR
                April 11, 1996, 6:00 p.m.
          •      EPA staff met with AmeriCorps workers.
                                                                            Mississippi  53

Transcript of Public Meeting
Stoneville, Mississippi
April  10,  1996
              Robert McCarty:  I am Robert McCarty
           and I am Director of the Bureau of Plant
           Industry in the Mississippi Department of
           Agriculture and Commerce, and in our bureau
           we  have the  responsibility  for  pesticide
           regulatory programs in the state. We are the
           designated lead agency for pesticide regulatory
           activities in Mississippi, designated to conduct
           the  compliance monitoring  enforcement
           programs by EPA. Consequently, we work
           with the Agency on all pesticide regulatory
           issues. This is a public forum that is being
           conducted by the U. S. Environmental Pro-
           tection Agency. We were asked to participate
           in the forum with EPA since the states are
           partners in the pesticide regulatory programs
           across the country with the Agency.  I was
           asked to serve as moderator.
              Mississippi is the host for this particular
           forum which is a regional forum. People from
           states in the mid-South were invited to attend
           and  participate and we  certainly want all of
           you to have an opportunity during the course
           of the night to make a statement pertaining to
           Worker Protection if you would like to do so.
           Let  me say welcome, to all of you, to the
           facilities here.  This is the Delta Research and
           Extension Center which is an arm or branch
           of Mississippi State University.  Our depart-
           ment,  the  Department of Agriculture and
           Commerce, works hand-in-glove with the
university  at  Mississippi State  to provide
education, training, and outreach programs
pertaining to pesticides. Our agency is invol-
ved in regulatory activities and compliance as
well as certain education activities. So wel-
come to this campus of Mississippi State.
Welcome to the State of Mississippi.  We
appreciate all of you coming.  I know that
field activities are taking time for many of the
farmers and  workers in  this part of the
country.  It's dry enough that tractors  are
probably running in the field in sight of this
campus. In spite of the time of year, the good
weather, I think we have good attendance, a
good cross-section of people involved in the
use of pesticides all the way from production
to recommendations for use, to applicators, to
workers being represented where pesticides
are used.  So we appreciate very much your
being here.
    Since this is an EPA-driven meeting, I
would like take this opportunity to introduce
the EPA officials with us. Standing in  the
back of the room is Jane Horton. Jane is the
Worker Protection Program Coordinator in
EPA's Region 4 office out of Atlanta. Region
4 in  EPA  involves eight  states  in  the
Southeast, Mississippi being one of those eight
states.  So Jane, we appreciate your being here.
She's the one who's really worked to set up
the  meeting.  We  have  Jackie  Harwood,
 54  Mississippi

Worker Protection Program staff person from
EPA headquarters in Washington.  On my
right is  Don Eckerman.   Don is  in  the
Certification Occupational Safely Branch and
works with  worker protection and  will
probably  be  able  to answer all  of our
questions tonight.   And  we appreciate him
getting here. They made a pretty good tour of
the delta area getting here this afternoon from
the airport in Jackson. They actually wound
up stopping in Shaw for  directions after
crossing  Highway 82 somewhere along the
    On my left is Susan Wayland.  Susan is
currently the Deputy Assistant Administrator
in the Office of Pesticides and Toxics.  That's
the office that oversees all of the pesticide
programs including the Office of Pesticide
Programs which falls under the Assistant
Administrator  for  Pesticides and  Toxic
Substances.   Susan  has  been a  long-time
acquaintance of mine since when she worked
in the Office of Pesticide Programs and has
been  very  close  to Worker  Protection
regulation development and implementation
and involved in the policy-making activities at
a very high level in  the Agency, and we are
delighted to have Susan with us. I would like
to  call  on  her to  make  some  opening
comments and then I will  come back  and
establish the ground rules  for participation in
the forum.

    Susan  Wayland: Thank  you  so  much,
Robert.   Don and  I did  have a  lovely
impromptu tour of some  of the area around
Shaw, Mississippi. We somehow missed the
sign to the Extension Research Center  and
 ended up in Shaw and went into a gas station
 and said, "Can you please tell us how to get to
 Stoneville?" and they said, "No, we hadn't
 heard of that." And I said, "Well, we are in
 deep trouble because I don't know where we
 are and neither do you, Don!"
    But for me personally it is great to be back
 here  in  Mississippi.   It's great to  be back,
 particularly in the delta. I've been here several
 times before, and I very much enjoy working
 with the folks that I have met here.  And it's
 also really good to be in a place where it is not
 snowing, I can assure you, having had another
 snowstorm in Washington yesterday!
    I just want to add to Robert's welcome
 and good-evening to all of you and to express
 EPA's real appreciation for all of you taking
 time out of your busy schedules to come and
 talk to us tonight. We are here this evening to
 listen and to learn about your experiences  so
 far in implementing the Worker Protection
 Standard.  I think that most of you in the
 room know that the  Worker  Protection
 Standard is  a regulation that provides basic
workplace  protection  by  first, informing
employees   about  potential  hazards   of
pesticides that they  may  be exposed  to;
secondly, by trying to  eliminate exposure
wherever we can; and  thirdly, when we have
exposure, to try to mitigate that exposure so
we have a safe work force.  And it is truly a
very  high  priority  of the  Environmental
Protection Agency.
    The   regulation   that   we're   now
implementing was a long time in coming. It is
a strengthening  of our national efforts to
safeguard the over 3.5 million  agricultural
workers in this country  and it was ten years  in
                                                                       Mississippi 55

          the making. It's been a long road, sometimes
          a windy road, sometimes a bumpy road, but I
          think that we are in a period now where we
          can really look forward to implementing the
          standard  and try  to work  out the  last
          remaining kinks.  Because of the importance
          of this  regulation  to EPA,  EPA and  its
          partners have exerted a lot of effort over the
          last year to reach out to those affected by the
          rule.  We have distributed a large amount of
          educational  training  material,  we  have
          supported  training compliance assistance
          sessions around  the country, and we have
          trained thousands of workers, handlers, and
              I mentioned the word "partners" and I do
          not take  this term   lightly—EPA is  truly
          appreciative of the tremendous amount of
          assistance that we have received by the states,
          from  the  states, from the Department of
          Agriculture, from the  growers including the
          Cotton Council, including the Delta Council,
          from the farmworker groups, and from the
          pesticide industry.  I think everyone has been
          magnificent in stepping up to the plate and
          trying to come to grips with the issues and
          giving us very sound  advice.   We do want
          these  requirements  to  be  protective  of
          workers but at the same time we want them to
          be workable in the real world.
              We have already made modifications since
           1995: we have accelerated the transition from
           15 days to five days for the grace period and
          we have  ensured that all workers will get at
           least some basic safety training before they go
           into the field. We have exempted qualified
           crop   advisors   from   most  of  these
           requirements of the rules, we have  allowed
early  entry  into pesticide-treated areas to
perform certain limited contact and irrigation
activities.  We have  established criteria for
some low toxicity pesticides to reduce the re-
entry interval from 12 hours to four hours and
that involves about 80 different pesticides.
And,  even as we speak,  we have had two
additional changes  out for public comment
dealing with  decontamination and  the sign
requirements. So we are trying to learn as we
go, we are trying to improve as we  go, and
hear you and meet the needs of everyone in
this room.
    We are looking to  evaluate how we are
doing  this program in  three different ways.
One way is to have a national dialogue (and
that's what we're doing here tonight). We are
going to be visiting about 10 states.  We've
already been to Florida; we are going to be
going to Washington, Pennsylvania, Missouri,
Indiana,  California, Texas, and Puerto Rico
after Mississippi and we want to hear a variety
of views. Obviously, agriculture is different in
different parts of the country. The issues will
be different for both  the growers and for the
farmworkers and so we want to get around to
as many parts of the country and have a real
dialogue with the people most affected by this
    But in addition to these public meetings,
we are going to be looking for a variety of
other  sources  to give  us   feedback and
information  on  how we are doing.  For
example,  we are  asking .the  farmworker
organizations that  are doing the training to
conduct some "pre" and "post"  pesticide
safety training assessments so we know how
the training is working and what the additional
56  Mississippi

training  needs  might  be  in  the  future.
Another example is the National Council of
Agricultural Employers  are going  to  be
holding a series of workshops  dealing with
many  agricultural issues  including worker
protection.  We expect to get a lot of good
feedback from those sessions as well. And we
do   expect  to  have  a  continuing  and
continuous  dialogue  with  the state lead
agencies—with people like Robert [McCarty]
and with the Department of Agriculture, the
people that are truly on the front lines and
dealing with the growers and  dealing with the
workers in trying to make this program work.
So we can see •what areas are working well and
where  we  need  to  make  some  additional
improvements.  And finally, over the long
term, we are going to be looking for ways that
we  can actually quantify what the benefits of
all of this have been—what have our efforts
paid off in terms of actually protecting health.
We're hoping to do that by tracking better
some pesticide incident data and looking at
trends from health surveys.
    What we're  hoping is that all of these
evaluation efforts will give us the information
we need in order to make the adjustments that
you need. In follow-up to tihe public meetings
(such as the one we're having tonight), we are
going to develop and distribute a summary of
what is learned in this dialogue.  So not only
will there be a transcript from this meeting,
there will be a transcript from all of the public
meetings and then we're going to try to do a
summary so you all can see, not only what you
said, but what other folks around the country
have said.
    So  tonight I'm hoping that we will be
 learning from you several things. First, what
 successes you've  had in implementing these
 requirements, what difficulties you've had in
 implementing  these  requirements,  what
 suggestions you  have  for improving this
 program and  what  you  think about the
 assistance you have received so far and what
' additional assistance you would like to see in
 the future.
    Before we start with the public session, I
 do want to express EPA's appreciation, my
 own personal appreciation,  for the leadership
 of the state officials here in Mississippi, and
 Robert  in particular, for all of the terrific
 efforts   in  outreach  communications  and
 compliance assistance.  We need, as I said
 earlier,   a  real partnership,  of regulators,
 growers, and farmworker advocates, to really
 make this program a success.  We  want this
 program, like a lot of the programs at EPA, to
 work in a common sense way. We want to
 establish some goals, but we want to have
 some common sense ways to get to those
 goals that I think we all mutually share.  So
 with that, I said at the beginning that we're
 hear to listen and not to talk, and those are a
 few remarks that I wanted to make, and I will
 turn it back over to our able moderator.

    Robert McCarty: Thank you very much,
 Susan.  That certainly opens up the meeting
 for the public forum. There are just two or
 three things that I would like to do before we
 start listening to the audience.  One is to
 introduce some of the people from my staff:
 Tommy MacDaniel, who is the coordinator of
 all of the pesticide  compliance programs.
                                                                        Mississippi  57

           Keith Davis, who works solely in compliance
           activities  for  pesticide   compliance  and
           enforcement. Homer Wilson is wearing two
           hats; Homer is working  with  the USDA
           record  keeping program and will be calling on
           farmers this summer, monitoring certain
           records. Dr. Michael Quart, who is leader of
           Agricultural and Natural Resources Programs
           in the  Mississippi  Cooperative  Extension
           Service, is here representing Mississippi State
           University Administration, particularly the
           Extension Director's Office. Dr. Jim Hamer,
           leader  of the Chemical Education Unit in
           Extension, was here earlier and I believe he
           just walked up to the door. Dr. Hamer has
           spent a lot  of time in putting the training
           component of this effort together in our state
           and set up some material against the wall on
           the left (if you would like to look at that
           during the break or after the meeting).  Also,
           he may make a statement later about some of
           our training activities in the state.
              I would call your attention to the material
           on the table in the rear of the room. That was
           provided by EPA  and  is available to the
           public.  Anyone that would like to pick up that
           material, feel free  to  do so.    If there's
           something there that you do not get a copy of,
           let one of us know and we'll make sure that
           you get the material. We don't want to pick
           up the material that was put  out by the
           Extension Service, but it is there for you to
           see and you can certainly  request it.  All of
           those notebooks, videotapes, record keeping
           forms, etc. are  available through the county
           extension offices in the state or directly from
           the  campus at the university.    So  take
advantage of that material while you are here
if you haven't had an opportunity to see it.
   This  forum  is being held  for  worker
protection.  Worker  protection under  the
Federal   Insecticide,    Fungicide,    and
Rodenticide Act started just a short time after
the Congress amended the law in the early
1970s, where the Agency published  a short
regulation setting re-entry intervals for certain
chemicals. As things evolved in the late '70s-
early  '80s, the Agency began developing a
regulation that went through the negotiated
rulemaking process and later was finalized by
the Agency and we've been in the process of
implementing this since 1992. The purpose is
to hear from the public about what's working,
what's not, what the concerns are that we and
EPA  need to be paying attention to with
regard to getting people in  compliance with
the current regulation. We don't want to go
back and start reinventing this entire  process
and going through everything that we went
through in  the mid-'80s and early  '90s to
develop  the  regulation  and  compliance
manuals, but we do want to hear concerns
from the public that need to be recognized
and need attention, and that's the purpose of
this forum.
   Proceedings  of  the meeting  will  be
available.  I would like to remind you that all
of the meeting is being recorded. There will
be written proceedings. It is a public meeting.
We want everybody to have an opportunity to
speak, but in order to do so you must sign up
at the desk outside the door.  If you plan to
make a statement, please sign up if you didn't
get on the list as you came in. Speakers will be
given five minutes  to make their statement.
58  Mississippi

We will be keeping time. We will stay on track
as far  as limiting presentations to worker
protection.  If you want to talk about other
FIFRA  issues such  registration,  pesticide
labels, ground water, food safety,  there are
several of us here that can visit with you from
the  states  of Mississippi,  Arkansas,  and
Louisiana—their  regulatory  agencies   are
represented.  The EPA staff will be glad to
hear your concerns and respond to it either
now or at some  future date.  This meeting
tonight will be limited to worker protection
regulation issues.  What I'm going to do is
begin listening and going right down the line
in order as you  signed up.  Are there any
questions before we begin  that?  I would
entertain a question or two for clarification.

   Speaker  from  Audience:  Will we be
allowed to ask questions during the  course of
the evening?

   Robert McCarty:  As long as it pertains to
wrker protection  issues and it doesn't disrupt
the presentations,  I think we could entertain a
question or two, but I should call on EPA
staff to respond to that question.

   Susan Wayland:  I think what we would
hope is to listen to you more than  have a
question and answer session. We want to hear
what  your  experiences  have   been  in
implementing the  rules. We are going to have
a break. We'll be available to answer  questions
during the break and we'll also be  happy to
answer questions after the meeting. I'm sure
a few questions would be fine, but we don't
want this to be a question-and-answer kind of

 ,   Robert McCarty:  OK, I think we can
handle that and maybe at the end, depending
on what time we conclude listening, we could
have some dialogue in the form of questions.
Is  there a Mr. Young with  the  Arkansas
Human Development Corporation ready to
make his statement? I would like to ask those
people making a statement to please come to
the podium and use a microphone. If you are
uncomfortable with the way it is turned, you
can move it a little. We tried to set it so you
would be facing the audience as well as the
people up here. But be sure to speak into the
microphone because the comments are being
taped for our proceedings.

    Jane Horton: And please state your name
at the beginning of your statement.

    Clevon Young:   My  name is Clevon
Young.  I am the Executive Director of
Arkansas Human Development Corporation.
I am pleased to be here this  evening and I
want to thank the state  officials and the
national officials for giving us the opportunity
to  come  and make  some  comments.   I
primarily want to just report on a consortium
that   Arkansas   Human   Development
Corporation is a part of: Arkansas Human
Development  Corporation,  formerly  the
Arkansas Council of Farmworkers, has been
providing employment and training, housing
and development, and health-related services
to migrant seasonal farmworkers for more
than 25 years  now. For about  the past 15
                                                                      Mississippi  59

           months, we have been  involved in what I
           guess you could say is a partnership with our
           national  association,  the  Association  of
           Farmworker    Opportunity    Programs,
           otherwise  known as  AFOP.  They have a
           grant from  the U.S.  EPA  as well as the
           National Corporation for Community Service
           and what they have done  is they selected nine
           state organizations (there are 53 programs like
           the   Arkansas   Human    Development
           Corporation) that operate in 48 states and
           Puerto  Rico.   (There  is more than  one
           program in  some states  such as California
           because of the size of those areas.) Through
           these agreements, they  have selected nine
           states to provide training to farmworkers and
           farmers on   the  new Worker  Protection
              I'd like  to  say that  as  a part of that
           program,  Arkansas  Human  Development
           Corporation, over the past 15 months, has
           provided training and certification to more
           than 2,000  farmworkers and growers  or
           farmers. None of that would  be possible
           without the assistance of primarily Mr. Charles
           Armstrong at the Arkansas State Plant Board
           who has come out and provided training and
           certification  for all of our staff  as well as a
           number of  AmeriCorps participants.   We
           currently have about 12  people in Arkansas
           who are certified to conduct this  training.
           Charles is  available,  he comes out  and
           provides technical assistance, he's provided
           certification   cards  for   us,  he's  on  call
           whenever there are questions, and I should say
           that whenever we provide the training, both in
           English and Spanish... Arkansas is one of
           those states in transition  and so we're getting
 a large  number  of Hispanic  and  Latin
 American farmworkers coming to the state to
 work there and often times there's difficulty
 with the language barriers, and having bilingual
 staff and staff of Latin American heritage is
 very helpful in terms of helping them integrate
 into the community there. We do not do any
 kind of investigations, anything that's brought
 to our attention we take  immediately to the
 Arkansas State  Plant Board.   If  there's a
 problem to be resolved, it's  resolved at that
 level between them and whoever.  We have
 partnerships  with  farmworkers  and with
 farmers.  We've developed these partnerships
 over a number of years we, quite frankly, place
 a high value on them.
    I will say that in terms  of problems, we've
 one or two people who  have come to the
 program  either  as  an  employee or  an
 AmeriCorps participant and kind of came to
 us with the idea that they were going to go out
 and change the face of agriculture in Arkansas
 and make  people stop doing what they've
 been doing for years and that kind of thing.
 And we quickly brought them into the office,
 had some talks with them, and in some cases
 we've been able to do some remediation and
 others we  had to kind of part... I guess you
 could say agreeing to disagree. And we don't
 apologize for that.  We are not making any
 comments about the value  of the Worker
 Protection  Standards.  We're here to do what
'we can with what we have.
    We've had, I think, a very good response
 there in Arkansas.  We are constantly finding
 or developing new partners, working with new
 associations. The Arkansas State Plant Board
 has given us all the information and I guess
60  Mississippi

you could say "materials" that we can store.  It
seems like every time Charles shows up, he
has a new van load of materials so somebody
evidently is  violating the  (what is it?), the
paper reduction act somewhere. I have with
me Ruben Arana, he's the Health Outreach
Coordinator  for  the  Arkansas  Human
Development  Corporation,  and  Reuben
coordinates  all of our...we call this program
our Health Outreach Program because we do
not solely concentrate on Worker Protection
Standards, we have  some individuals there
who also concentrate on  HIV and AIDS,
alcoholism, other kinds of problems that are
health-related  and  are common to  the
farmworker community.

    Robert McCarty:  You have one minute.

    Clevon Young:  Oh, do  I? Well at this
point, unless there's  a question, I'll assume
that I'm  in Congress  and I'll yield the rest of
my time.

   Donna Winters:   My name is Donna
Winters and I'm First Vice President of the
Louisiana Cotton Producers Association and
I want to thank you  for the opportunity to
relate  the front  line experience of  the
members of the Louisiana Cotton Producers
Association. We appreciate EPA's willingness
to listen  to the concerns of those who are
affected by the standards and to modify those
standards where just cause can be shown.
   As I said, my name is Donna Winters. My
husband and I are producers of cotton, corn,
soybeans and wheat  in northeast  Louisiana
near the town of Lake Providence.  I grew up
on a farm, in fact I still live in the house on
the farm that I grew up in, and have been a
farmer for the past 25 years. I also serve as
First Vice President of the Louisiana Cotton
    I'd  like  to   review  several  of  the
requirements of the farm Worker Protection
Standard   individually   and   relate   my
observations and comments. I believe these
opinions are shared by the majority of cotton
producers in my area.  First of all, relative to
the education  and training portion of the
standard, I think this is probably one of the
most important parts. I  think once  you
educate the worker as to what he's dealing
with, it makes it much easier to get him to
comply  with  the   personal  protective
equipment portion.
    In  the personal protective  equipment, I
think this is the portion of the standard which
holds  the  most  potential  for reducing
exposure to workers in the cotton industry,
particularly as  it relates to  those  workers
involved in the mixing and loading process.
These tasks are generally of short duration and
yet they involve a relatively high potential for
exposure.  Because these tasks  normally last
no more than  five  to  ten  minutes  per
operation, the cumbersome nature of the
personal protective equipment is manageable.
However, if you  should  have to refill  a
number of tractors simultaneously or stay in
the equipment for very long,  it's going to
expose that worker  to some heat-related
problems. We continue to believe that for
certain other short-duration tasks, such as
equipment   adjustment  and   unstopping
nozzles, an apron should be sufficient where
                                                                      Mississippi 61

           coveralls are now required. These tasks do
           not involve great risks and the need to don
           coveralls in hot weather for a brief, low-risk
           operation  is a problem.  Cotton producers
           have made significant progress in conforming
           to the requirements for personal protective
           equipment.  However, hot weather and the
           hurried  pace  of field  operations can be
           difficult obstacles to overcome.
              With regard  to record keeping, we feel
           that the record keeping requirement  of the
           farm Worker Protection  Standard is one
           which  the  average  cotton   producer  is
           struggling with. Surely everyone would agree
           that keeping good records makes good sense.
           But when a producer spends 12 to 13 hours a
           day on a tractor or in a pick-up truck riding
           his fields, any  record keeping  duties  in
           addition to the normal accounting, bill-paying,
           field records  and USDA pesticide  record
           keeping requirements can be  burdensome.
           We feel that the majority of producers have
           no clerical help  and must add this to their
           already busy  schedule.   Good, inexpensive
           software which  can  be used  in a personal
           computer to ease the load is greatly needed.
           This would help some, but many producers
           do not have computers. I saw the sheets in
           the back that said "software" but that's really
           the first that I had seen that you had software
              With  regard  to  re-entry  intervals and
           posting requirements, since the typical cotton
           operation no longer requires large numbers of
           hand laborers,  the  re-entry  intervals  are
           primarily a factor as they relate to irrigation
           operations. We appreciate EPA's recognition
           of this and their allowance of exceptions to
these activities. Again, the need for coveralls
on top of other work clothing in hot weather
can be a problem. We believe that the ability
to re-enter fields that have 48-hour reentry
intervals after a 24-hour waiting period with.
workers wearing gloves  and long  sleeves
would  be  helpful in short  duration,  low-
contact situations. The need to post fields is
greatly reduced by the fact that we rarely have
the planned need for hand laborers to re-enter
a field during the re-entry period. I continue
to question (personally continue to question.)
the need for any re-entry interval on some
chemicals, particularly herbicides which can be
purchased by the untrained general public at
many  retail  stores   (and  I'm  thinking
specifically Roundup and some of those types
of herbicides).
    In   regard  to   decontamination   and
emergency assistance, this area is really an area
that's the  easiest  for  our  producers  to
'conform to.  We work shoulder to shoulder
with our employees and they're very valuable
to us and  their well-being is of the  utmost
importance  from both  a practical  and a
personal standpoint.
    In summary, the cotton industry is making
an honest effort to comply with the  farm
Worker Protection Standard but we need a
renewed  effort  regarding  awareness   and
compliance.   We believe the state agencies
responsible  for  the  enforcement   of the
Standard and the farm organizations which
provide producer leadership should engage in
such a campaign.  Another thing that might
help awareness is more prominent labeling of
the major features of a product's requirements
such as a large  orange sticker on a box, so
62   Mississippi

often you don't have to read the fine print,
with  labeling  such  as  "Re-entry 24 hours,
Gloves, Coveralls, Face Protection." Once
again, we  appreciate  the opportunity to
express our experiences and our concerns.
Thank you.

    Robert McCarty: Thank you very much,
Donna.  I'll take  just a moment to make a
couple  of  other introductions.    Bobby
Simoneaux, my counterpart in  the state of
Louisiana; Bobby  is Director of the Pesticide
Regulatory Programs.  Mr. Charles Armstrong
with  the  Arkansas  State  Plant Board  is
responsible  for compliance  in the  state of
Arkansas and we appreciate them being here
to listen along with the EPA officials. We'll
move on to the Louisiana Farm  Bureau. Mr.
Parker will make a statement for Farm Bureau
in Louisiana. Be sure to state your name for
the record at the beginning.

    Tap Parker: My name is Tap Parker and
I'm currently the Chairman of the Louisiana
Farm Bureau Cotton Committee and I'd like
to make a few comments  concerning Farm
Bureau's views as well as some of the things
that have happened  to us in our personal
operation.     From  a   cotton   farmer's
perspective, the WPS has had a  tremendous
effect on our farming operation because of
the large number of applications that we tend
to make. Regarding the training requirements,
we have made  every effort to make sure our
employees are  properly educated concerning
the safe use of pesticides  and that we also
know that other area farmers have done the
same  as well. In general, we don't have any
problems with the intent of the law because
we've already been making available some of
the  current information mandated in the
current provisions to  help  our employees
become aware of these safety regulations. In
fact, our consultant has agreed  to come by
annually and conduct safety seminars for our
employees and our employees have been very
receptive to this.  So we feel like that's a real
good part  of the  program.  Providing the
equipment  has not  imposed any sort of
economic burden on us—it's been easy to do.
I  think  our  men have  appreciated  the
equipment being there for them. So all of
those are just good common sense things that
have been mandated, and we feel those are
real good things.
    Our biggest concern, however, lies in the
time constraints of the  restricted  re-entry
intervals and the posting requirements for the
actual pesticide applications. For example, not
being  able  to  enter  the  cotton  field
immediately after pesticide application has
been applied can result in producers having to
violate some of our best cultural practices for
the crop. And,  because of our large number
of applications, the requirements  can become
very burdensome and confusing.  Also the
protective equipment requirements can be
quite overwhelming when applications must
be made during the dead of summer with 98°
temperatures and 95 percent humidity.
   Generally speaking, we agree with the
intent of WPS but would like a little more
flexibility in complying with some of the more
stringent aspects of the regulations.  As you
heard  on  other  occasions,  our  primary
concern is to make sure the benefits of any
                                                                      Mississippi  63

          proposed regulation outweigh the cost before
          implementation.   After talking with other
          growers, and with other commodities, the
          consensus seems to be confusion surrounding
          REIs and posting requirements.  Most of our
          farmers  have made strides  and attempts to
          comply but these two areas of the regulation
          still seem to be of the most concern to most
              We appreciate  EPA's decision last fall to
          reconsider two areas of concern: a shorter
          timeframe  for   making   available   the
          decontamination sites when using low-risk
          pesticides, and language and size requirements
          for warning signs. The Farm Bureau supports
          the Agency's efforts to examine shortened
          required decontamination periods and would
          recommend  revisions  in  decontamination
          requirements with longer REIs as well. We
          support a zero-day decontamination require-
          ment  for all pesticides with 4-hour REIs,
          mainly because of two reasons: first, it would
          encourage the use  of low-risk pesticides; and
          secondly, EPA has stated that these pesticides
          with a 4-hour REI do not appear to impose
          any significant risk to workers.  Therefore, the
          requirement becomes unnecessary.
              The Farm Bureau also offers the following
          comments on other options EPA considered
          during the comment period. We hoped EPA
          would  eliminate  the   requirement  for   a
          decontamination site after crops are harvested
          because there  are few  cases, if any, where
          contact with  treated surfaces  occurs  after
          harvest.   Eliminate the  decontamination
          requirement when the REIs expire because
          the EPA's own data states that risks associated
          with pesticide exposure decline substantially
when the REI  ends.  Third, to allow field
workers to bring decontamination kits into
treated areas as early entry as it is required for
handler workers for safety and simplification
reasons. We believe the above improvements
in requirements will meet the dual goals of
applying  the   regulation  while  providing
substantial safeguards  for pesticide workers
and  handlers and  urge  the Agency strong
   In summary, we understand that Worker
Protection is here to stay but we do encou-
rage the EPA's continued dialogue with the
agricultural industry to make any necessary
adjustments in  the regulation, basically for
simplicity    and   also   for   economic
considerations.  I appreciate this opportunity
to make comments. Thank you.

   Robert McCarty:  Thank you very much.
I would like to  commend all of the speakers
for being right on target, and making some
very timely remarks, and certainly staying with
the allotted time. Next is Mr. Homer Wilson,
current   President   of  the   Mississippi
Agricultural Consultants Association.   Mr.
Wilson represents a group of people in the
state that advise  our cotton producers on pest
management  practices  and  the  use  of

    Homer Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
EPA staff, it's a pleasure for me to be here to
represent the Consultants Association.  I am
Homer Wilson, current President  of the
Mississippi Agricultural Consultants and we
want to express our appreciation up front for
removing some of the Standards, as was said
64 Mississippi

 earlier. At least the consultants have become
 exempted from some of the requirements and
 we appreciate that and the whole Agricultural
 Consultants Association in Mississippi want to
 express   their   appreciation   for   that.
 Consultants in Mississippi are a well-trained
 group of individuals. They represent some
 one million acres of cotton land besides the
 rice and the other crops they're consulting on,
 and of  course,  have  good contacts  with
 farmers all over  the state.  They do abide by
 the standards and we see a great improvement
 in compliance from our farmers.  As  time
 goes on, the farm community is doing a much
 better job in complying  with  the  Worker
 Protection Standards and training their people
 and we see even more progress in that as time
 goes on.
    We know that there's a great  deal of
 concern  from all sources concerning what
 takes place in the ag community now but we
 can  say  in  Mississippi that  the regulatory
 personnel and the state agencies are doing a
 great job training our people and training the
 personnel who are associated with agriculture
 in being  able to comply with the standards
 that EPA has  set up. We, of course, know
 that these are  things we're going to  have to
 live with and the lady from Louisiana has well
 stated the concerns that I have.  In fact, she
 covered very well the points that I would like
 to make  but I would like to reemphasize  a
 couple of things concerning what we know to
 be taking  place in  the field, since we have first-
hand contact with the farmer and the people
 that are applying the materials.
   The most concern that I get from the field
is  the garments  that have to be worn for
 protection.  This especially is true in the hot
 humid  conditions that we  sometimes find
 ourselves in.  Like the lady said, if we are
 loading two or three  tractors, it's  hard to
 withstand some of the heat conditions and
 some of my farmers have been concerned that
 even though his worker complies at the very
 moment that he is there, if he turns and walks
 away to another tractor or gets out of sight,
 that individual takes off some of this gear,
 especially the respirators—it's  very hard  to
 endure these for a long period of time. This
 is a concern that my farmers have.
    Another concern is  the length of  the
 manual in training for some of the individuals.
 We  do have a barrier  there in terms  of
 education  and   the   conception   or  the
 realization of the need to be trained from
 some of the people that we deal with and
 sometimes it makes it difficult to get these
 people to understand just what needs  to be
 done.   We  believe that,  as the lady from
 Louisiana said, that perhaps an apron and
 gloves (rubber gloves) would be sufficient to
 clean nozzles and to  repair boom  work
 around  the  machine  when it is required,
without having to wear excessive garments for
 that work.  But all in all, we do see a better
 relationship  with everyone concerned. Our
 people are beginning to learn what is needed
 to be done and are complying with it to the
 best of their ability as  a whole. The main
 point that we have is keeping close enough
 contact with the individual taking off some of
this gear—and if he does that, the farmer is
concerned about what  could happen at that
point to  his liability when the worker has been
told to wear those garments. And that's about
                                                                       Mississippi 65

          all I have to say. I appreciate the opportunity
          to  bring these points up and we certainly
          appreciate you holding the meeting here in

          [The remainder of the transcript is unavailable
          due to a failure in the tape recording of the
          meeting. Additional speakers at the meeting
          were contacted subsequent to the meeting and
          asked to send in  written comments to be
          incorporated in this report. Three of these
          speakers (Charles Armstrong, Bill Kennedy,
          and  William Timmers)  sent  in  written
          comments,  appended to this  chapter. The
          following  represents  a  summary  of  the
          testimony of the remaining speakers]:

              Mike Gallman: Expressed concerns that
          PPE is too hot and  too   cumbersome;
          discussed the difficulty of getting employees to
          wear PPE  and requested that the Agency
          simplify the PPE requirements. He stated that
          boots and  gloves are all the PPE  that is
          needed for workers and handlers.

              Billy Fountain: As owner of a small retail
          nursery  business, Fountain  expressed  the
          concern that the WPS  requirements  will
          unduly alarm customers. He is  interested in
          keeping  employees  safe,  but  questions
          requirements that hinder  normal business
          operation, such as central posting, warning
          signs and training requirements.   Fountain
          was especially concerned about the posting
          requirements and public perception, and the
          cancellation of Temik and other pesticides
          which were essential to  pest control in his
          operation.  He stated that government regu-
lation is  reducing the profitability of small
businesses and the  WPS is the latest of a
number of regulations that do more harm
than good.  Fountain invited EPA staff to
tour his facility to better understand the small
nursery business.

    Tom Crumby:  Stressed the need for
education and cooperation.

    Mark Kurtz: Complimented the training
portion  of the regulation  but  expressed
confusion about the requirements for crop
advisors. Kurtz questioned if researchers are
crop advisors under the WPS. Researchers are
all  well trained and unlikely  to  take risks.
Central posting requirements and  warning
signs are a problem in research plots.  Kurtz
characterized the posting and record keeping
portions of the WPS as too cumbersome, and
expressed concerns about heat stress when
wearing required PPE.
66  Mississippi

Registered Participants in the Public Meeting
          Wes Allen
          Mississippi Agriculture Aviation Association

          Ruben Arana
          Arkansas Human Development Corporation

          Charles L. Armstrong
          Arkansas State Plant Board

          Rodney Baker
          Arkansas Farm Bureau

          Greg Baldwin
          Stoneville Pedigred Seed Co.

          Craig Bednarz
          Mississippi State University

          Vilma Bell
          Central Mississippi Legal Services

          Phillip Bible
          Dawson Farms

          Jimmy Bonner
          Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service

          Brian Breaux
          Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation

          E.A. Cancienne
          Louisiana Agricultural Aviation Association

          Jack W.Carroll
          Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service
 Maynard Chandler
 Sandoz Agro, Inc.

 Scott Charbo
 Tri-State Delta/UAP

 James P. Glower
, Louisiana Agricultural Consultants Association

 Tom Crumby
 FMC Corporation

 Mike Ellis
Jimmy Sanders Inc., MACC

 Lyn Ellis
 Central Mississippi Legal Services

 David Ferguson
 USD A-Agriculture Research Service

Billy Fountain
Fountain's Green Grow-cery

Mike Gallman
Louisiana Agriculture Aviation Association

Bob Golitz
Anguilla, MS

Jim Hamer
Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service

Becky Hoagland
USD A-Agriculture Research Service
                                                                            Mississippi  67

          Joe Homes
          Mississippi Delta. Council for Farmworkers
          Opportunities, Inc.

          John W. Impson

          Paul G. Johnson
          Stoneville Pedigred Seed Co.

          Bill Kennedy
          Delta Council

          Laurel A. Koll
          Micro Magic

          Mark Kurtz
          Mississippi State University

          Bill Mulkey
          Dawson Farms

          Tap Parker
          Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation

          Ralph Pay
          Arkansas Crop Protection Association

          Charley Richard
          American Sugar Cane League

          Mills L. Rogers
          Rogers Consultants Associates

          Steve Rye
          Louisiana Agriculture Aviation Association
John H. Schmidt
USDA-Agriculture Research Service-Mid
South Area

Bobby Simoneaux
Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture and Forestry

Pies Spradley
University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension

Sharon Sullivan

V. Ray Thornton
Cane-Air, Inc.

William L. Timmers
USDA-Agriculture Research Service-Mid
South Area

Britt Whitley
Helena Chemical Co.

Homer Wilson
Mississippi Agricultural Consultants

Donna Winters
Louisiana Cotton Producers Association

Ray Young

Clevon Young
Arkansas Human Development Corporation
68  Mississippi

Site Visits and  Small  Group Discussions
           Dr. George Furr, Clarksdale, MS
           •   April 9, 1996, 4:30 p.m.
           •   EPA staff met with Dr. Furr, a retired physician who has written about the human immune
              system, and Frank Chiles, a crop consultant.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —    Dr. Furr believes that pesticides are producing many of the health problems he has
                    observed in the Mississippi Delta.

              —    Effects of chlorinated hydrocarbons on the immune system.

              —    Concerns expressed by Frank Chiles about the use of Furadan.

           Tutweiler Clinic, Tutweiler, MS
           •   April 9,1996, 7:00 p.m.
           •   EPA staff met with Sister Ann Brooks, MD, of the Tutweiler Clinic.
           •   The clinic provides preventive and health maintenance programs for the community. Three
              quarters of its annual budget is derived from private donations and public funds.
           • '  Among the topics discussed at the meeting were:

             —    Health problems of clinic patients, including several rare cancers and one confirmed
                    acute poisoning due to exposure to the pesticide Lorsban (chlorpyrifos).

           Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS
           •  April 11,1996, 9:00 a.m.
           •   EPA staff met with Dan Branton, Delta Council; Dr. John Jenkins and William Timmers,
              USD A-Agriculture Research Service; Robert McCarty and other staff, Mississippi Department
             of Agriculture and Commerce; and Mike Blankenship, Mississippi Farm Bureau.
           •   Slide presentation by Dr. Jenkins on cotton production, which emphasized the need for control
             of insects throughout the growing season.  Other slide presentations highlighted research at the
             Delta facility on aerial and ground application technology, and the Delta Council's
             environmental programs.
           •  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:
                                                                               Mississippi  69

              —     Concern that WPS is too cumbersome and regulations are too long.  Posting and
                     personal protective equipment (PPE) provisions are of particular concern.

              	     Growers are concerned about potential lawsuits from employees and believe that
                     reducing PPE requirements would help employers, encourage wearing of PPE, and
                     reduce heat stress.

              	     Suggestion-mat EPA set PPE requirements based on likely exposure to individual
                     pesticide, rather than by generic categories of toxicity.

              	     Discussion of Mississippi Cotton Chemical Stewardship Program which began in 1995
                     with the goal of promoting the appropriate safer use of cotton pesticides.

          Edwards Flying Service, Leland, MS
          •   April 11,1996,11:00 a.m.
          •   Tour of flying service, including experimental aerial application booms intended to reduce drift.
          •   EPA staff met with Mark and John Edwards, owners and one worker.
          •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              	     New aviation guidance equipment (Landsat) designed to eliminate the need for field
                     flaggers (workers who stand in the field and direct applications by signaling to pilots)
                     and allow for more precise applications of pesticides.

              	     Concerns about the practicality of PPE (other than gloves), given the potential for heat

          Farmworker Meeting, McGehee, AR
          •   April 11,1996, 6:00 p.m.
          •   EPA staff met with AmeriCorps (national public service corps) workers who are providing basic
              pesticide safety training in Arkansas. No farmworkers attended, possibly because it was the
              height of planting season and they were out late working in the fields.
          •   Among the topics discussed at the meeting were:

              —     AmeriCorps volunteers  believe the project is working well, reaching and training many
                     people. The trainers are making a major effort to work with county extension agents.

              —     Physicians are not trained  in medical school to recognize poisonings; they often tell
                     workers that they just have a cold or allergies.
70  Mississippi

Physicians lack training in diagnosing pesticide poisonings and therefore tell workers
that they just have a cold or allergies.

The Arkansas Dept. of Health is setting up a program to train doctors to recognize and
diagnose poisonings, and has set up a panel of Agriculture and Health officials to
develop a database of information on poisonings. When the Department of Health
offers seminars on how to identify poisonings, however, many physicians are
uninterested in attending, according to the volunteers.

Employers or growers' reactions are positive when training is free. Often, once they
find out that training by AmeriCorps workers is free, they want to take the  training
themselves, in addition to training their employees.  However, some employers do not
always tell employees about the need for or availability of training.

Concerns about pesticide drift from aerial applications, affecting many people in
adjacent areas.

Concerns that some workers who come into Arksansas saying that they were trained in
another state do not seem to know the basic WPS regulations.

Respirators are often considered too heavy and may therefore not be worn as required
by pesticide label PPE directions.

Suggestion that EPA reward farmers for good pesticide practices, rather than conduct
enforcement actions for non-compliance.

Suggestion that in future outreach efforts, farmworkers and employers should be
brought together in  one room to discuss issues.
                                                             Mississippi  71

Written Comments
             Charles Armstrong
             Arkansas State Plant Board

             Bill Kennedy
             Delta Council

             Donna Winters
             Louisiana Cotton Producers Association

             William L. Timmers
             USDA Agriculture Research Service
72 Mississippi

                         IN GREENSVILLE, MISSISSIPPI ON
                                    APRIL 10,1996
I am Charles Armstrong, Assistant Director, Division of Pesticides, Worker Protection Ground
Water and Endangered Species Coordinator of Pesticides, Arkansas Slate Plant Board, Little Rock,
Arkansas. We need three things in order for the Worker Protection Standard to work. They are
Education, Communication, and Working Together.  We  must educate the farmers, workers,
handlers and general public about pesticides:

       1.  How to handle pesticides safely;

       2.  Why we need to use Pesticides;

       3,  Symptoms of pesticide poison; and

       4.  How to protect yourself when using pesticides.

If we as EPA, State Regulatory Officials, Cooperative Extension Services, Farmers, Commercial and
Private Applicators do our  part in the educational process, this program will work.  We must
communicate; The regulatory authorities must talk to the Registrants, the Farmers, the Applicators,
the Workers and Handlers to get input on a rule like this. A meeting like this opens up the channels
of communication between all groups involved or impacted by the rule.  We cannot make the
necessary corrections needed without proper communication between everyone involved in this
Worker Protection Standard.

We must all work together for the same common cause, to protect individuals from poisoning and
mitigate pesticide exposures that the individuals could receive.

Arkansas Human Development Corporation trains most of migrant, and other farm workers under
National Farm worker Environmental Education program with Americorp  trainers.  Americorp
trainers work with extension agents to coordinate training efforts.  Dealer Associations and
Agricultural Consultants also train handlers and workers in Arkansas. The trainers take the train-the-
trainer course and pass an exam to become certified to issue  EPA Verification Cards.

For a program of this magnitude, we must:  Educate, Communicate and Work Together.

                      APRIL 10, 1996              OCT
                      BILL KENNEDY
     Good  Evening.   My  name  is Bill Kennedy,  of  Inverness,

Mississippi, and  I  serve as President and  General Manager of

Duncan Gin Company. This evening, I appear before you on behalf

of Delta Council,  an organization representing  agriculture and

business  throughout  the  18 Delta and  part-Delta counties of

Northwest Mississippi. Although Delta Council initiates action on

a wide  range of issues including industrial  recruitment, water

resource  developments, highway and transportation improvements,

and flood protection, the people of this region have long recognized

that agriculture continues to be the largest industry for the future of

this area. In view  of the importance of agriculture  to the region,

Delta Council is involved in all aspects of  farming  and  allied

agricultural businesses.

     Relative to the subject of Worker Protection Standards, Delta

Council would like to make brief remarks.  Working through Delta

Council and Farm Bureau, producers throughout this region have

been actively involved in pesticide stewardship efforts, pesticide risk

communication and education programs, and most recently, we have

worked cooperatively with the Mississippi Department of Agriculture

and  Commerce to ensure that careful  adherence is maintained to

Worker  Protection  Standards.   We  are  especially grateful to

representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency for visiting

the Mississippi Delta last year for the purpose of evaluating "on-

farm" and "real-life" problems associated with specific provisions such

as protective clothing, personal protection equipment, and re-entry

intervals.  Due to EPA's sensitivity to the problems which were

presented to the agency on behalf of farmers by organizations such

as Farm Bureau, the National Cotton Council of America, and Delta

Council,  practical solutions were  offered to  some  of  the  more

difficult challenges facing implementation of the Worker Protection


     Delta Council  continues to  evaluate the  current  Worker

Protection Standards in order to make them more acceptable to farm

workers who have oftentimes found these standards too rigid and

without enough flexibility.

     Delta Council has a genuine respect for the need to maintain

farm  worker safety  programs and we  are strong advocates  of

pesticide risk management initiatives aimed at preventing human

health risks and pesticide exposure. When it was determined in 1993

that the liquid  formulation of carbofuran was being utilized in a

manner which exposed farm workers to safety risks, Delta Council

and Farm Bureau joined with the Mississippi  Department  of

Agriculture and Commerce to encourage the suspension of further

use of this product for the remainder of the crop year.  It was only

after substantial changes had been made in the product handling and

distribution system for  carbofuran that  Delta Council and Farm

Bureau joined with the manufacturer and the Mississippi Department

of  Agriculture  and  Commerce  to institute  safety and  training

programs  which led to its use in 1995 without an incident.

     Delta Council will continue to carefully monitor approaches

being taken  to  reduce risk  and we will also maintain focus on

reconciling problems  associated with  farmer  liability,  personal

protective equipment, and protective clothing as it  relates to the

implementation of rules related to Worker Protection Standards.

     We express our appreciation to the agency for continuing to

work with us in  a cooperative spirit to address Worker Protection

Standards and other agri-environmental issues.

                        Respectfully submitted,
                        Bill Kennedy





                        STONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI

                            APRIL 10, 1996

                            PRESENTED BY:



     Good evening, and thank you for this opportunity to relate the front line

experience of the members of the Louisiana Cotton Producers Association (LCPA).

We appreciate E.P.A/s willingness to listen to the concerns of those who are affected

by the standard, and to modify those standards where just cause can be shown.

     My name is Donna Winters. My husband and I are producers of cotton, corn,

soybeans and wheat in Northeastern Louisiana near the town of Lake Providence.  I

grew up on a farm and have been a farmer for the past twenty-five years.  I also serve

as first vice-president of the LCPA.

     I would like to review several of the requirements of the Farm Worker Protection

Standard individually and relate my observations and  comments.  I believe these

opinions are shared by the majority of the cotton producers in my area.

1. Personal Protective Equipment

      I believe this is the portion of the standard which holds the most potential for

reducing exposure to workers in the cotton industry; particularly as it relates to those

workers involved in the mixing and loading process.  These tasks generally are of
                                                             t     '

short duration and yet they involve a relatively high potential for exposure.  Because

these tasks normally  last no  more than five or ten minutes per operation, the

cumbersome nature of the personal protective equipment is manageable. However,

having to  refill several tractors simultaneously would require more time and could

expose that worker to various heat related problems. We continue to believe that for

certain other short  duration tasks such as equipment adjustment and unstopping

nozzles, an apron should be sufficient where coveralls are required. These tasks do

not involve great risk and the need to don coveralls in hot weather for a brief, low risk

            •.,                     *                  ''.'•,.,
operation  is  a problem.  . Cotton producers have made  significant  progress in

conforming to the requirements for personal protective  equipment; however, hot

weather and the hurried pace of field  operations can be difficult obstacles to

overcome. Sometimes emergencies arise in the field such as a broken line that could

be more quickly addressed by  the donning of rubber gloves in lieu of full fatigues.

2.  Recordkeeping

      The recordkeeping requirement of the F.W.P.S. is one which I believe the

average cotton producer is struggling with. Surely everyone would agree that keeping

good records makes good sense; but when a producer spends 12 to 13 hours a day

on a tractor, any recordkeeping duties in addition to the normal accounting, bill paying,

field records, and U.S.D.A. pesticide recordkeeping requirements can be burdensome.

The vast majority of producers have no clerical help and must add this to their already

busy schedule.  Good, inexpensive software, which could be used in a personal

computer to ease the  load, is greatly needed.  This would help some, but many

producers do not own  computers.

3. Re-entry Intervals and Posting Requirements

      Since the typical cotton operation no longer requires large numbers of hand

laborers, the re-entry  intervals are primarily a factor as they relate to irrigation

operations.   We appreciate E.P.A.'s recognition  of  this and their  allowance of

exceptions for these activities.  Again, the need for coveralls on top of other work

clothing in hot weather can be a problem. We believe that the ability to re-enter fields

that have 48 hour re-entry intervals  after a 24 hour waiting period  with workers

wearing • gloves and long sleeves would be helpful in  short duration, low contact

situations. Tne need to post fields is greatly reduced by the fact that we rarely have

the planned need for hand laborers to re-enter .a field during the re-entry period. I

continue  to  question  the need  for  any   re-entry intervals .for some  chemicals,

particularly herbicides  which can be purchased by the un-trained general public at

many retail stores.  :

4.  Decontamination and Emergency Assistance

      The decontamination, and emergency assistance requirements of the F.W.P.S.

are among the easiest to conform with for most cotton producers. We generally work

shoulder to shoulder with these valued employees and their well being is of the utmost

importance from a practical and personal standpoint.

      In summary, the cotton industry is making an honest effort to comply with the

Farm Worker Protection Standard, but we need a renewed effort regarding awareness

and compliance. We believe the state agencies responsible for the enforcement of the

standard, and the farm organizations which provide producer leadership should engage

in such a campaign.  Another thing that might help awareness is more prominent

labeling of the major features of a product's requirements such as a large orange

sticker on the  box with  labeling such  as REI 24 Mrs. - Gloves-Coveralls-Face

Protection.  Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to express our experience and

our concerns.

Thank You

September 23, 1996
         United States        Agriculture
         Department of      Research
         Agriculture         Service
Administrative Management
Mid South Area
Administrative Office
Jamie Whitten Delta States |
 Research Center
P.O. Box 225
Stoneville, MS
Ms. Jeanne Keying
401M St. SW
Washington, DC 20640

Dear Ms. Keying:

                         OCT  I  I  1996
                       OPP PUBLIC DOCKET
As a result of a letter received from Ms. Jane B. Horton, US EPA, Atlanta, GA, I am forwarding
information on some of the comments pertaining to the Pesticide Worker Protection Standard
(PWPS) that I made at a public meeting held here at Stoneville, Mississippi on April 10, 1996.
Ms. Horton has stated that the tape recorder used to record the conversations was inoperative,
and consequently, all record of the conversation was lost.

Basically my comments fell into three areas of concern:
•      Posting of small research plots vs entire fields,
•      Problems associated with heat stress and personal protective equipment, and
•      The use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) vs exposure times in areas of application.
In the next three paragraphs I will attempt to reconstruct, in detail, the comments I made at the

The posting of small research plots on our research facilities presents unique problems when
compared to the normal farm. I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated September  1, 1993,
(Enclosure 1) sent to the EPA Region IV, which I feel explains the research plot problem very
well.  We never received a reply, and we have since adapted by posting portions of the land
(Replication, Treatment, Experiment, Plot or Field, see letter for definitions) as determined by the
scientist charged with performing the research.  In some instances, areas larger than the area of
pesticide application have been posted.  We have found no harm in this practice. We have also
purchased large quantities of signs. I would hope that a revision of the PWPS would allow
additional flexibility in posting of areas of pesticide application.  We feel that there is a definite
need to warn others when toxic/harmful Category I and II pesticides are applied to an area.

Problems associated with heat stress as a result of the wear of personal protective equipment such
as Tyvek suits and respirators have been well documented here in the Mississippi Delta. The
number of instances of employees suffering heat related illness have far exceeded  the number of
employees sustaining pesticide exposure related illnesses. In addition, the chances of an employee
becoming a fatality as a result of heat related illness are far greater. The temperatures routinely
reach 95 - 100 degrees Fahrenheit (F), with an  accompanying Heat Index of 110 - 115 degrees F.
The temperatures in greenhouses can be even higher.  USD A, ARS research personnel at our
         Conducting the National Research Programs in Alabama, Kentudy, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee

 J. Keying
 Mississippi State, Mississippi, location have developed an automated, computer controlled,
 pesticide spray system (Enclosure 2) which may be installed in greenhouses. This system
 eliminates the need for any personnel to be in, or around the greenhouse during pesticide
 application, or during the entire re-entry period.

 Many of the Department of Labor's, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
 standards pertaining to air and chemical contaminants are predicated on a time-weighted average.
 For a long term exposure the allowed limit is lower than that for a short term exposure.
 Consideration should be given to regulating pesticide exposure in a similar manner. As an
 example, an operator of a "High Boy" type spray tractor, with an enclosed air conditioned cab,
 needs to wear little or no protective equipment as long as he/she remains in the enclosed cab.
 Should the operator be required to dismount to unclog a stopped up spray nozzle, he/she may be
 required to don a Tyvek suit and respirator in the confines of the cab, prior to getting down on
 the ground to work on the spray nozzle.  The actual exposure time, while unstopping a nozzle,
 would only be a few minutes, not likely to cause any harm under most circumstances.  The
 donning of PPE in the confines of a "High Boy" cab would be more likely to result in injury to the
 operator as he/she flails about trying to "suit up", than a couple of minutes exposure on the
 ground would cause.  The time-weighted approach,  with exposure times and exposure level
 calculations based on the ingredients and percentage of mixture would seem to be far more
 practical. The use of PPE would also impact the time-weighted average for exposure purposes,
 with the idea that when PPE is being used,  the allowed exposure would be greater. The present
 system of using the product label to convey information to the user could continue to be used
 with a time-weighted system. It is also possible that this system could not be used with all
 pesticides, a detailed study would probably be needed.

 Farmers and their employees in the Delta tend to be very respectful of pesticides and their effects
 on people and the environment. Economics dictate that fanners don't use any more pesticides
 than absolutely necessary because they are expensive to purchase and apply. One of the big areas
 of emphasis should be the continued education of farmers and employees as to the effects of
 pesticides used. Approximately 70% of ARS's research at Stoneville, Mississippi is devoted to
 the reduction or elimination of pesticides in the growing of Delta crops. A good example is the
 research in B. T. Cotton.

 Additional emphasis and research needs to be done on the subject of biological control of pests,
 an area where we have only scratched the surface. Biocontrol pesticides instead of chemical
 pesticides have the potential to greatly reduce the amount chemical pesticides used and released
 to the environment. This is an  area that needs continuing research.

 I really appreciate the EPA's attitude in requesting input from the agriculture industry, and in
 particular a research institution such as ours.  The opportunity to make up the portion of the
 public meeting that was lost, and to make these comments a matter of public record is greatly
appreciated.  The effort going into the revision of the PWPS Cannot but help to create a better
PWPS, one that will benefit all  those involved in the  use of pesticides.

J. Keying

Area. Safety, Health and Environmental Manager
2 Enclosures

J. B. Horton, EPA
T. J. Army, AD
A. Tucker, AAO
W. R. Meridith, CP&G

 No  Muss,'No  Fuss  Spray Rig for Greenhouses
                  x                •    'JL     «/     • - CJ
          round the ARS Crop
          Science Research Labora-
          tory at Mississippi State.
 Mississippi, maintenance mechanic
 Stan Malone is regarded as an
 engineering wizard.
   Last summer, Malone put his
 exceptional talents to work when
 Quinnia L. Yates, a biological lab
 technician, proposed the idea of
 automating an insecticide spray
 system for greenhouse-grown plants.
 After surveying Yates' greenhouse,
 Malone envisioned an overhead
 pesticide-misting rig that might best
 fill that bill.
   But none of the commercial
 greenhouse suppliers they later
 contacted sold any such rig matching
 his conception. "We tried every-
 where," Malone says, "but there was
 nothing out there we could find."
   His next move was to team up
 with Dennis Rowe, who heads up the
 lab's Forage Research Unit.
   With the unit's help,
 Malone then designed a
 system of his own—
 drawing on such off-
 the-shelf items as a
 toggle switch, timer
 clock, pressurized
 pesticide tank, chemical
 hoses, flora nozzles, and
 other components
 chosen from various
 commercial equipment
   With the new system,
 "there's no human
 involvement except for
 mixing of pesticide
 according to the manufacturer's
 label," Malone says. "You simply fill
 your tank with whatever insecticide
 you need to control the insects, set
 the timer clock, and turn on the
 switch  and leave."
   This activates electrical relays that
 temporarily close the greenhouse's

              exhaust fans, motori/.cd whitlows.
              and vents. A special valve attach-
              ment .then releases compressed air
              into a 5-gallon tank, forcing pesti-
              cide into overhead hoses and brass
              irrigation nozzles. These mist the
              chemical over the plants, providing
              full coverage in 2-1/2 minutes for a
              30-by 40-foot room.
                The system then flushes its hoses
              clean with blasts of air and, after the
              pesticide settles, restarts the green-
              house's environmental controls.
                                 WINDOW MOTOR
                  SPRAY TIMER CONTROLLER
               Before the automatic system's
             installation, it took Yates about 45
             minutes to manually spray insecti-
             cide to curb populations of white-
             flies, mealy bugs, and other destruc-
             tive insects. Left unchecked, their
             feeding damage can jeopardize the
             uniformity of plants grown for
             research. But 1994 EPA worker
 protection standards—while effec-
 tive—made routine spraying ardu-
 ous, costly,  and unpleasant.
   The standards dictate that green-
 house workers wear a respirator, pro-
 tective suit,  gloves, goggles, and
 boots when  spraying. But in a hot,
 humid greenhouse where tempera-
 tures can reach 110"F, a suited work-
 er can easily become faint or dizzy.
   Because of this, "we sometimes
 would neglect spraying until we got a
 buildup of insects," Yates says. "But
 with the new spray rig, it's not
 necessary to risk a buildup." It also
 eliminates the need for the costly
 disposable suits.
   The system can be set to spray at
 night or on the weekends. Also,
 "users can modify it to fit their
 applications," says Malone. He has
 installed the new rig in 15 of the
 ARS lab's 30 greenhouse rooms.
          The costs for materials
       start  at $700 for a 30- by 40-
       foot room. Computer-con-
       trolled foggers and other
       commercial devices that
       apply pesticide in greenhous-
       es range in cost from $2,000
       to $5,000. "The greatest gain
       I see," says Rowe, "is know-
             ing workers are not
                exposed to spray."
                   Rowe, Malone,
                and Yates intend to
               submit detailed
               plans for the new
               system to a trade
               journal.—By Jan
               Suszkiw, ARS.
                  Stan Malone is
at the USDA-ARS  Crop Science
Research Laboratory, P.O. Box
5367, Mississippi State, MS 39762;
phone (601) 323-2230, fax (601)
323-0915. Dennis Rowe and Quinnia
Yates are in the lab's Forage Re-
search Unit,  at same address and
phone, fax (601) 324-8499. •*
                                                                                    Agricultural Research/July 1996

September 1, 1993
Mr. Richard Pont
Pesticide Program Unit
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia  30365

Dear Mr. Pont:

During  the   implementation   of   the  revised  Pesticide  Worker
Protection Standard  within the U. S.  Department  of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Mid South Area, we find a potential
problem.    Specifically,   the requirements  outlined  in 40  CFR
170.120(c)(3), pertaining to the  posting of signs in areas treated
with Toxicity Category I & II pesticides.  We have 11 agricultural
research facilities in the Mid South  Area engaged in research in a
variety of plant production areas,  including plant genetics, plant
physiology, and plant growth.  Each of our facilities may have some
fields of a size comparable to that found on a commercial farm, but
many of our fields are of  10  acres or less and are broken up into
many smaller units for experimentation purposes.

In order to better illustrate the problem,  I would like to define
five  (5) terms  that  will  be  used in  this  letter to delineate the
relationships between units of land used by our Area for research.

     1.    FIELD  -  An  area  of  significant  acreage  used  for
experimentation, usually assigned to a research unit.  One of our
research facilities,  or  locations, may have as many  as  20 or 30
fields used for experimentation.
     2.   PLOT -  A portion of
scientist for experimentation.
or more plots.
a field  assigned  to a particular
A field may be divided into 10,  20
     3.  EXPERIMENT - A portion of a plot assigned for use in one
experiment  by a  scientist.   One scientist  may have 10  or more
experiments going on at the same time.

 Richard Pont                                                    2

     _ 4.  _ REPLICATION - The scientist divides the  experiment into
 replications.   The scientist  duplicates individual experiments to
 insure meaningful conclusions may be drawn in the research.   One
 experiment will have a minimum of 4  replications,  and may have as
 many as 10 replications,  depending on the experiment.

      5.  TREATMENT - The scientist will divide the replication into
 treatments,  (up to  10, or even 20). which will be the smallest unit
 of  measure used in this  letter.   Pesticides  (insecticides,
 herbicides,  fungicides,  etc.) will be applied at  rates  and  times
 dictated  by  the  nature  of  the  experiment.     I/A/W  40  CFR
 170.120(c) (3)  this would be the area  requiring the posting of  signs
 denoting application of  Toxicity  Category I pesticides.

 Not all Treatments  will have pesticides  of  Toxicity Category  I
 applied.     Depending upon  the   experiment,  several  different
 pesticides (with varied Toxicity Categories)  may be applied to the
 Treatments,  either simultaneously or  at  slightly varied times.  The
 same  situation may also hold true for Replications,  Experiments,
 Plots, and Fields.  Each Treatment, Replication,  Experiment,  etc.,
 generally has an access walkway around it to separate and  delineate
 it  from other areas of equal size. Pesticide  application to  these
 very small areas is usually accomplished using hand spray  equipment
 due to the need for controlled application and results in minimal,
 or  no, drift to other areas.

 Many applications of Toxicity Category  II, III,  or IV pesticides
 may. °.nlv  require  oral  warnings.   The  types  of  warnings  and
 notifications  of pesticide  application  will  vary on  a day-to-day
 basis  for  any  given Treatment, Replication,  Experiment,   Plot, or
 Field, depending on the type  of research, and pesticide  used.  In
 some cases, the Treatment, Replication,  Experiment,  Plot,  or  Field
will require application of a  pesticide  daily  for several days, or
 even weeks.  The techniques of the use  of pesticides during,  and
 for, research often differ from the use of the same pesticides by
 commercial farmers for whom  this standard was intended. The future
uses of many pesticides by farmers ultimately may  well  be  dependent
upon the results of research conducted in these experimental areas.

The only personnel authorized to enter an Experiment  (or  smaller)
area are the researchers (scientists)',  research  technicians, and
research technician  assistants who are directly  involved in the
research going on in that Experiment  area.  The research personnel
normally are responsible for the application of pesticides only to
Experiment/Replication/Treatment areas within their Experiment

Richard Pont                                                    3

area.     The   research   personnel  are   fully  aware   of  the
characteristics of any pesticide used on any given Treatment within
their  Experiment  area.     Pesticide  applications  are  strictly
controlled as to amount,  method and rate, and are normally applied
by the researchers, or research technicians,  who would be trained
to  the  "handlers" standard.   The  only  persons  who would  be
authorized to  enter the  Treatment  area  where pesticides had been
applied, during the pesticide restricted entry period,  would  be the
researcher, or research technician functioning as a "crop advisor."
This person would  have been trained  as  a handler,  be wearing the
protective equipment required for application, and be performing
the research in that Experiment area.  Persons not involved  in the
experiment,  or the  Experiment area,  would  be  notified of  the
pesticide application by the signs posted around the Experiment
area  in the  same manner  as  a  normal  farm  field.   Additional
information on pesticide applications would be available at a
central information board in the Field area.   The large number of
Experiment areas would require several central information boards
in the Field areas to handle all the Notices of Application, which
would  contain  the  information  required  by  40  CFR  170.122.
Personnel from outside of ARS are not normally used in a "worker"
capacity in the Experiment  areas.   Consequently,  there is  little
chance  of  exposure to personnel not knowledgeable  in the use of
pesticides.  The quantities  of any given pesticide applied  in the
Experiment area is minimal,  especially when'compared to the amounts
used in normal fields.  Decontamination and training requirements
of the Pesticide Worker' Protection Standard would be met.

The number  and size of Fields, Plots,  Experiments, Replications,
and Treatments will vary  from one facility to  another,  depending on
the size (of the facility),  and the research mission.  The  number
of Treatment areas can easily reach 1000 or more at one location..
At four (4)  signs per Treatment area, the number of signs necessary
to post application areas  as  presently required,  (the Treatment
areas) , can be mind boggling.  While the cost and control of signs
may pose little problem  to  a commercial farmer with only several
fields  not  broken into  smaller  units,  we estimate that several
thousand signs may be needed  just to properly post one research
facility, I/A/W the existing directive, with only 100  experiments
under way.  At a cost  of  $4.75 each, for a light plastic sign (with
a limited life span due to sun, rain, and wind) , the cost presents
a burden that  this Agency may  not  be able to afford due to  budget
constraints and cuts  by  the current administration.  The cost of
signs  for all  of  the research  units  on  just one  medium sized
facility for one fiscal year is conservatively  estimated to  exceed

Richard Pont                                                    4

We request that an interpretation be gi^ven allowing the USDA, ARS,
Mid South Area, to post required pesticide warning signs around the
area of an Experiment for Category I & II pesticides, as described,
in lieu of posting each Treatment area, without restricting access,
and without imposing restricted entry interval requirements on the
untreated portions of the Experiment area. Posting of signs around
the Experiment area instead of each Treatment area would result in
a considerable savings to the Agency in the cost  of signs, provide
adequate protection to USDA-ARS employees and insure notification
to persons not involved  in the experiment.

Safety, , Health, and Environmental Manager
Mid South Area

P. A. Putnam, AD
C. E. Skeens, AAO


                                   1 CAT I  DN


                                                                4  n
4      ?4

    4  3
4 4
4 4
' <
                                                Z.  n
                                                N  X

t •"
'• 4



4.   Texas
       Public Meeting:

          McAllen, TX
          •   April 25, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •   50 participants (33 registered), including 12 speakers

       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions:

          Plantation Produce, Mission, TX
          •   April 25,1996, 8:30 a.m.
          •   Visit to a 7000-acre farm (onions, vegetables, grains, and sorghum) and large-scale packing
              and shipping operation.
          •   EPA staff met with 15 staff of Plantation Produce; representatives of Texas Citrus Mutual,
              Texas Vegetable Association, Texas Produce Association, Texas Department of Agriculture.

          Rio Queen Citrus, Mission, TX
          •   April 25, 1996,10:00 sum.
          •   Visit to a citrus farm (grapefruit and oranges) and tour of the facilities and equipment.
          •   EPA staff met with Ken Martin, owner, Paul Heller, manager and three staff of Rio Queen;
              Texas Citrus Mutual; Texas Vegetable Association; Texas Produce Association; Texas
              Department of Agriculture.

          Roland Dusters, Edinburg, TX
          •   April 25, 1996, 11:30 sum.
          •   Tour of facilities of aerial and ground applicators.
          •   EPA staff met with Blayne Roland, owner and pilot, and five staff members; Texas
              Agricultural Aviation Association, Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Vegetable Association, Texas
              Produce Association, Texas Department of Agriculture.

          Farmworker Meeting, Hidalgo Park, Pharr, TX  ,
          •   April 25, 1996, 3:00 p.m.
          •   EPA staff met with 20-25 farmworkers; Juanita Cox, United Farm Workers; Raymond Gill,
              South Texas Civil Rights Project; Jose Sanchez, Texas  Department of Agriculture.
                                                                                   Texas 73

          Farmworker Meeting and Site Visit, San Juan, TX
          •   April 25,1996, 4:30 p.m.
          •   EPA staff met with 20-25 farmworkers; Juanita Cox, United Farm Workers; Jose Sanchez
              and Randy Rivera, Texas Department of Agriculture.
74  Texas

Transcript of Public Meeting
McAllen, Texas
April 25,1996
              Larry Soward: Good evening, everyone.
          On behalf of Texas Agriculture Commissioner
          Rick Perry, I want to thank all of you for
          coming out tonight to attend this meeting.
          I'm Larry Soward, the Deputy Commissioner
          of the Texas Department of Agriculture.  I
          would like to take this very special opportunity
          to welcome to the State of Texas Dr. Lynn
          Goldman, who is the Assistant Administrator
          for  Prevention,   Pesticides  and  Toxic
          Substances    -with   the    Environmental
          Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.  We
          are extremely pleased, Dr. Goldman, that you
          have chosen Texas and the Rio Grande Valley
          as a site for one of your nationwide public
          meetings on the Worker Protection Standard.
          I would also like to take this opportunity at
          this  moment  to  welcome a couple  of
          neighbors of the State of Texas who have also
          joined us tonight.    From the  State  of
          Louisiana, Director of Pesticides,  is   Mr.
          Bobby Simoneaux and from the State of New
          Mexico,  the  Worker  Protection  Standard
          Coordinator, Ms. Sheri Sanderson.  We are
          glad to have you here tonight.
              Meetings like this one that we are holding
          here  tonight,  help to keep  government
          responsive.   Those  of  us who work at
          regulatory agencies such as EPA or the Texas
          Department of Agriculture need to make sure
          that we get out and solicit input on how our
various  programs are working.  WPS  has
brought many changes to everyday agricul-
tural operations.  Tonight, those of you who
are  attending   this  meeting   have   the
opportunity to tell EPA how the WPS pro-
gram works on a day-to-day basis. You  can
discuss what has been successful and what
needs to be changed to make this program
   As  many  of you  know, Commissioner
Perry has taken  a strong interest in WPS
matters.   He's  Chairman of the National
Association   of State   Departments  of
Agriculture,  Committee  on WPS.    He
continues  to work to make the regulations
simple to understand and easy to comply with,
while effectively protecting our farmworkers
and our environment. Commissioner Perry
has charged all of us on his staff to quickly
investigate any human exposure complaint
and to pursue enforcement against applicators
who violate these regulations. However, he
strongly believes  that most farmers strive to
follow these regulations and education is  the
best  way to  help  them  in  this  effort.
Education leads  to a strong knowledge of
regulations which in  turn  helps to avoid
problems.  Preparation and prevention  are
always better than punishment and problem
solving.  Tonight is all about education. You
who have to implement WPS in the field day-
                                                                                  Texas  75

           today, can educate us on how we can make it
           easier  and  work  more  effectively  and
           efficiently for you. We all welcome your input
           because we  want  to  help  you  meet the
           regulations while keeping our farmworkers
           and our environment safe. Again, on behalf
           of Commissioner Perry and the Texas Depart-
           ment of Agriculture, we want to  thank Dr.
           Goldman and her staff at EPA for allowing us
           Texans  to  voice  our  concerns   and our
              Now I would like to introduce Mr. Allyn
           Davis, who is  the  Acting Deputy Regional
           Administrator   for  the   Environmental
           Protection Agency in the Region 6 Office in
           Dallas. Mr. Davis will offer further comments
           and other introductions. Mr. Davis.

              Allyn Davis: Thank you, Commissioner
           Soward.  I will be the monitor this evening.
           And I would like to point out that this evening
           we are providing translation services in both
           English and Spanish, and if you would like a
           headset, they are available at the front desk
           where you check in. In addition, the entire
           session is being tape recorded. Besides your
           oral comments, if you would like to provide
           any written comments, EPA would be pleased
           to accept them.
              This evening is one meeting in a series of
           informal meetings to receive public input on
           how the Worker  Protection  Standard  is
           working   during   the  first   year  of
           implementation.  This   evening   we  are
           interested in your  comments  and anyone
           wishing to speak may sign in at the front desk.
           You will be able to speak in the order that you
           sign in. So far, seven individuals have signed
up to make presentations.  Because of the
length of time, we are going to ask you to
keep your comments to under five minutes.
At about four minutes, I will give you a sign
that you have approximately one minute to go
and at the five minute mark, I'll stand up to let
you know that you really need to wrap up
your comments.
   Now, it is my pleasure to introduce Dr.
Lynn Goldman, the Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides  and
Toxic Substances.  Dr. Goldman is the top
EPA  official  responsible  for  pesticide
programs at EPA. Dr. Goldman is a medical
doctor in nutrition and career-wise has had a
variety of assignments with the California
Department of Health. Most important, foe
those of us in Region 6, she is a native Texan!
Dr. Goldman.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman:  Welcome and good
evening. I and my colleagues at EPA and with
the Texas Department of Agriculture are here
to listen to all of you about your experiences
with implementing  the  Worker  Protection
Standard.  I believe that  it is very important
that we are all here tonight. In government
we frequently put into play new regulations
and  then we don't evaluate how effective
those new measures are.  I also think that too
often we in Washington are  just faceless
people whose names you see, but you don't
have a chance to meet with or talk to.  And
much of the purpose of this meeting is to
have  the   opportunity  for  face-to-face
communication, the kind of interaction that is
necessary so  that we can really understand
each other.
76  Texas

    The Worker Protection Standard is a basic
set of workplace protection for those who
work with pesticides.  Its goals are to inform
employees about the hazards of pesticides, to
eliminate the exposures to pesticides and to
mitigate the exposures—to treat the exposures
if they do unfortunately happen.  It is one of
the highest priorities of EPA.  The standard
represents  a  major  strengthening  of the
United States  government's efforts  to safe-
guard over three and a half million agriculture
workers and pesticide handlers. It took over
a decade to achieve the strengthening on the
federal level compared to what existed in the
past. It was not easy for the EPA, and indeed
for our country, to develop and implement
these standards.
    The implementation  efforts,  in  my
opinion, have been one of the most extensive
efforts that we  have ever done.  We have
produced and distributed a very large number
of  training  materials, some  of which are
available right here  on  the  table  tonight.
There   has  also  been  a very extensive
educational effort—education for all of those
who are affected by the standard—the farmers,
the workers, the pesticide handlers—on how to
comply with  the  basic  pesticide  safety
standards.  And also for ourselves,  for the
federal  regulators,  the  state   partners, and
others  about  what  is needed in  order  to
achieve compliance.  Tonight is another step
in our collective education process—education
for us and me and you—and hopefully all of
you will benefit from hearing comments from
each other.  During the process of imple-
mentation  we have  had to  respond to  a
number of specific concerns that have been
raised  by  farmworkers   and  raised  by
agriculture groups.  Not every situation that
occurs in agriculture was  foreseen by  the
people who wrote the rules.  Also,  many
specific questions  have come up that were
actually covered by the standard, but needed
interpretation,  needed guidance  so  that
everybody could understand  how to follow
the rule.  All of this is inevitable and I should
say that, although when you go through each
and every possible situation it seems complex,
the rule itself is a straightforward standard and
one that I think can be implemented by the
    In  1995, I think many of you were aware
that we amended the standard, and I want to
mention  some of the things that we did.  We
accelerated the transition from 15 days to five
days for the training grace period, and we also
ensured  that the  employers  provide basic
safety information  to all workers  before they
ever enter a treated area.   We exempted
qualified crop advisors from some of  the
requirements.  We allowed early entry into
pesticide  treated areas to perform certain
limited contact and irrigation activities, and we
established  criteria  that   allowed  toxicity
categories III and IV pesticides  (that's  a
technical term for the pesticides that have less
human toxicity) to qualify  for a  reduced
restricted entry interval from 12 to four hours.
This covers about 80 or so products.  Shortly,
we will be issuing some  other revisions  of the
rule, some final rule amendments addressing
issues raised with decontamination,  warning
sign requirements, and a proposed rule that
addresses issues with glove requirements.
                                                                             Texas  77

              As we work  to  carry out the Worker
           Protection Program, we will continue to work
           closely with all of those who are affected by
           this regulation and identify and address issues
           of concern. We don't believe that the work
           we've done over the last couple of years is the
           end, in terms of our understanding of the full
           impacts of the regulations and what we need
           to do to make it work for all of you. As with
           any new program, I know that many of you
           may have concerns about the costs to comply
           with  the requirement and about enforcement
           of the standard or other issues. I want to say
           thatwe have those concerns, too.  We want to
           make sure that the standard is working. The
           point  of  the  standard  is to  reduce  the
           exposures  and  reduce  the  illnesses  for
           farmworkers. We want to make sure that this
           is happening. We want to make sure that the
           standard is being enforced, and we are also
           obviously very interested in making sure that
           the standard can work for you. [Inaudible]...
              Let me emphasize again, tonight is the
           time  for those of you who have concerns to
           talk,  and for those of us who work for the
           EPA and the state to listen. We want to hear
           your thoughts  about the Worker Protection
           Standard.  We want to know what is working
           and what is not working.  I want to close by
           saying  that we have made a commitment to
           make this program work in away that protects
           the health of the public, protects the health of
           the pesticide workers, and lessens the risks
           while providing flexibility. We want to aim for
           something we know we are able to carry out.
           Our  approach  is  to  find concrete ways to
           achieve our goals. I look forward to hearing
           all of your comments. I want to thank all of
you for being here tonight. I realize we have
busy lives, and it is not easy to get away on a
week night to come to a meeting like this. I'm
now going to turn the meeting over to our
facilitator and again, thank you all for being
here tonight.

   Allyn Davis: Thank you, Dr. Goldman.
The first individual that would  like to give a
presentation is Pat Kornegay who is with the
Texas Agricultural Aviation Association.

   Pat Kornegay: OK.  Can you hear me all
right?  My name is  Pat Kornegay.  I am
President of the Texas Agricultural  Aviation
Association. We are a state-wide organization
with about 300 professional aerial applicators.
For  over 20  years,  I have worked as  an
agricultural pilot. We are one of the older
commercial aerial application businesses that
provide crop  protection chemicals, to  an
average of 200,000 acres of crop land yearly.
I am also speaking on behalf of the  National
Agricultural Aviation  Association, which
represents  the aerial  application industry's
interests in Washington, D.C. I would like to
address some of the issues and concerns of
commercial aerial applicators involving the
Worker Protection Standard.
   The  first  concern  involves   Section
170.224, which addresses the requirements for
notification  by  commercial  applicators  to
agricultural  employers  of the  timing  of
pesticide applications.  It also involves the
specific products we use in EPA registration
for re-entry regulations and such. We recog-
nize the importance of this information which
establishes  posting and re-entry periods for
78  Texas

agricultural workers; however, the definitions
and  requirements  contained in WPS are
somewhat   vague,   and   the   ultimate
responsibility for establishing communication
between  pesticide  handlers and agricultural
employers is not specifically clear.
   There   are   several   methods   of
communication deemed acceptable under the
statute, such  as direct telephone  contact,
answering machine messages, faxes, etc.  The
end result would be difficulty on the part of
the enforcing agency to verify whether or not
contact  is  made   and,  therefore,  where
responsibility  rests in enforcement action.
Our suggestion is that the responsibility for
providing information involving a pesticide
application remain  with the pesticide handler
and   commercial   applicator,   but   that
responsibility for initiating the communication
to  obtain the  knowledge  be with  the
agricultural  employer.    The  agricultural
employer initiates  the chain of events  that
results in a pesticide application.   A  vast
majority  of commercial pesticide applicators
operate out of a central  location, where all
scheduling is initiated and where all records
are kept.
   What I'm saying here is, in actual practice
as a commercial applicator, we operate out of
a central location and our growers are in the
field.  The growers initiate the process by
calling us, in  order for  the  application to
occur, which involves the site to be treated,
the products to be  used—and the grower may
actually supply  them for us. And so he already
has  the  information—MSDS  sheets on the
products, re-entry information  and worker
protection PPE requirements and such. At the
time that they turn in an order, we give them
a proposed  time  of application.  The only
difference that I am suggesting here is perhaps
just defining that the ultimate responsibility in
obtaining that information  rests with the
growers.  They are initiating the action, and it
is  their workers that are the focus of this
standard. So as the law reads, the agricultural
handler/pesticide applicator is responsible for
providing this  information,  and we don't
intend  to  change  that.   We  have  that
information, so we provide it.
 ,   In a couple of instances, there have been
enforcement issues  with WPS  compliance.
The enforcement agency goes to the grower
on a complaint and  tries to find out why re-
entry periods were not observed and posting
was not done.   They  reply,  "Well, the
applicator didn't tell us they were doing it."
So then  they go to  the applicator and then
what you have is  the agency bouncing back
and forth between the  two trying to solve a
problem. There's no real clear-cut respon-
sibility and that's why we're concerned. We
understand that we have a responsibility to
provide this information, and we will do that,
but we think the  responsibility for initiating
the contact  in verifying the  actual times of
applications should  rest  with  those who
initiate the orders. This is a minor point, but
it  could  have serious implications down the
road, for us as applicators and  also for the
growers.  It clarifies the communication issue.
As  the  agricultural  growers   bear  the
responsibility of posting and conveying re-
entry information to field workers, this would
be consistent with that process and not be an
additional burden.  The  pesticide  handler/
                                                                            Texas  79

            commercial applicator can still be responsible
            for providing that information.
               OK.   The  other  area where we have
            concerns is  personal protective  equipment
            (PPE).   It's our understanding through our
            national  association  in  Washington,  in
            discussions with EPA,  that standards for
            personal protective equipment for pilots have
            been relaxed. It's obvious that for us to wear
            a Tyvek suit inside an aircraft would be a
            definite  threat  to aviation safety.   Ninety
            percent of the aircrafts used in the U.S. today
            have sealed cockpits and operate under air
            conditioned  requirements.  This is a clean
            environment and if you require pilots to wear
            bulky protective equipment, it inhibits the
            pilot's ability to fly an aircraft...with respirators
            and  suits   and   face   shields.     Pilots
            predominately wear helmets and gloves that
            are not  necessary.  Another approach that
            EPA has is that we should carry PPE, the
            personal protective equipment package,  in the
            aircraft—involving the  suit, helmet, or face
            shield, gloves, rubber boots and all that sort of
            thing—for entry and exit of the aircraft-well,
            these are single seat aircrafts, and tomorrow
           we are going to do a tour and show you some
            of these aircrafts, OK. You'll look at this and
            you'll see a pilot strapped into a seat and you'll
            realize that  putting on  or  taking  off  of
            personal protective equipment is  virtually
            impossible to do. We understood from EPA
            that also  in March  we were  going  to
            (Inaudible]... to the Federal Register or delete
            the requirement that we wear rubber gloves
            and exit gear. The problem we have with that
            is we have a clean environment, and the small
            cockpit is sealed until we introduce these dirty
gloves into it, and that's the problem we have.
Basically, what I'm saying  is that  all of the
pilots in the United States should be trained as
certified restricted-use pesticide applicators as
well as independent contractors.  What our
industry would like to see is that we, as self
exmployed, bear the responsibility for using
and  not using  our  personal  protective
equipment,   that  we  should  have   this
equipment at our business and provide them
for our employees.  All of us have been in this
business  for a  long time.   There are  no
documented cases  of agricultural aircraft
crashes that have involved or been  caused by
pesticide poisonings.
    OK, well that's basically it. Those are the
two issues  that we  have,  the notification
procedure and personal protective equipment.
Any questions?

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: I said earlier, but if
you do have your  comments in writing we'll
be happy to, as well as hearing them, receive
them in writing.

    Pat Kornegay:  Well, [Inaudible]... a copy
for each of you.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  That would be great.
Thank you.

    Joyce Obst: Hi, Dr.  Goldman, and may I
welcome you to Texas,  and I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Texas
Citrus Mutual and the Texas Agri Women.
,My name is Joyce  Obst. My husband and I
operate a diversified citrus and vegetable farm
in the Alamo area.  Both Texas Citrus Mutual
80  Texas

and Texas Agri Women have been active in
sponsoring and promoting WPS  trainings
since the regulations were announced.  WPS
impacts most agricultural products producers,
but it has the heaviest impact on producers of
labor intense  crops like myself. We produce
fiber crops as well as citrus and grain crops.
    Safety  is  important  to  everyone  in
agriculture, including farmers as well as  the
workers. In fact, the farmer is a farmworker.
We never ask our employees to do something
we usually wouldn't do ourselves or haven't
    WPS certainly raised the level of awareness
about  the importance of safety  in  the
agricultural workplace.  I compliment EPA
and the Texas Department of Agriculture in
putting together this.   I think this  is  an
excellent training for the farmworkers.  In
fact; I think it's long overdue. Farmers who I
know are making a serious effort to comply
with the WPS.  The training of workers about
common sense safety practices is the  most
important part of WPS. In general, I  think
that the WPS rules are really complex. When
requirements   are  too  complicated,   the
compliance with the rules is almost always less
than  when  the  rules  are  simple  and
    In the case of the WPS rules, there are 140
pages in the manual on how to comply with
these rules. I would like to encourage EPA to
reduce the length of the regulations and to
simplify them whenever possible. One grower
commented recently that he finds it frustrating
to see  the general reference statement on a
label that says he is to comply with Part 170 of
the Code of  Regulations, but not to see at
least a summary of that actual  rule right on
the label.
    In terms of informing growers about WPS
requirements, I would point out that I feel like
a large number of growers are not aware of
the changes that have recently been made
regarding limited  contact  tasks,  irrigation
activities and the reduction  in the re-entry
intervals for certain low toxicity pesticides. If
EPA  would  publish  a  summary of these
changes, Texas Citrus Mutual and Texas Agri
Women would be pleased to help distribute
them   through   their  newsletters   and
memberships and other publications.
    I would also like to address the matter of
encouraging workers to assume more personal
ownership regarding their own responsibilities
for compliance with WPS.  In other words,
individual workers should  assume  some
responsibility  for their own  safety.  As I
understand the present rule, all the burden is
placed on the employer to train and enforce
worker compliance, to wear their  personal
protective equipment  and to do things that
many times an employer cannot control. On
our   farm  sometimes,  it's  a  lack  of
communication. If a farmer/worker is out in
the field, and  I'm over at the  shed, I don't
know what they need unless they come tell
me.   And a lot of the times, we may have
relocated our protective equipment because
we're changing from one  crop  season to
another crop season,  and we have it at the
market rather than the shed.  It's a working
together situation.  And it's totally unreason-
able to require employers to stay in sight of
workers at all  times to ensure  that they are
doing everything they should. Workers should
                                                                           Texas   81

           also have some responsibility for keeping up
           with continuing  education in the same way
           individual farmers are required to keep their
           CEUs  in order  to maintain their pesticide
              As I understand the WPS rules, the farmer
           or  operator  is  held responsible  for the
           compliance   by   employees  of   custom
           applicators and workers employed by a crew
           leader.  We certainly believe that the specific
           employer, i.e., the  custom applicator or the
           crew leader, should address compliance issues
           regarding  their  employees  and  not the
           owner/operator, just because  the  worker
           happens to be on his property.
               Our final comment is about decontam-
           ination facilities.  I understand, under current
           regulations, the facilities are required to be
           enclosed at a given site for 30 days after the
           re-entry interval has expired.  We believe the
           re-entry requirement on the label means that
           the testing of that chemical indicates that no
           harmful residue will be left at the end of the
           re-entry period.  Therefore, we urge EPA to
           revise the rules to drop the requirement for
           decontamination facilities at the given site
           after the re-entry interval has expired. Thank
           you  for  this  opportunity  to present this
           testimony. We also want to thank you again,
           Dr. Goldman, for taking time to personally
           come to  these public meetings especially in
           the Rio Grande Valley. Thank you.

               Emilie  Sebesta:  My name is  Emilie
           Sebesta.  I'm an attorney with Texas  Rural
           Legal Aid.  I'm with the Farm Worker Health
           and Safety Project. We deal specifically with
           farmworkers  who  travel throughout the
United  States, most of whom make their
home in the Rio Grande Valley. I would like
to mention several things.
    First thing is that as far as my experience
with the Worker  Protection Standard goes,
one of the experiences I had with this was last
June.  I attended a vegetable growers' meeting,
and during this meeting .they had a train-the-
trainer  program,  and it was  a very good
program/training  put on  by  the  Texas
Department  of  Agriculture,  but  I  was
distressed by some of the comments made by
farmers. Certainly not a major [Inaudible]...
by any  means, but  one  of the farmers, for
instance,  asked   if he  could  withhold  a
farmworkers'  paycheck  if the farmworker
couldn't prove that he had received training or
couldn't produce  the Worker Protection
verification card. Another farmer suggested a
way  around  that  was  just  to  fire the
farmworker after five days because you have
the five-day grace period.  Certainly, I'm not
suggesting  that this was the  rule  among
farmers, but, nonetheless, this was said at an
!open meeting with Texas Department of
Agriculture officials present.  Almost every-
body knows who I  am, and I was there and
they still said it.  This concerned me  quite a
    I'm also worried that employees will begin
to get the  picture that if they haven't been
trained they might not get a job. Therefore,
there may be an incentive for farmworkers to
say, "Well, I have received training, I just don't
have my card," and then they would get a job.
So,  I  think there  n§eds  to be   more
enforcement.  Perhaps there needs to  be a
way of setting a central data system. It needs
82  Texas

to be set up by either EPA or with the state
itself, where people could verify who has been
trained  and who hasn't been trained.  The
employer could check if the farmworker says,
"I've been trained."  The employer could
access this data system and see if the workers
have been trained or not.
    With regard to the statement just made—
who  should   bear  the  responsibility—I
understand where that's coming from, but I
just don't think it makes any sense  in this
circumstance.  I mean you have people who
are making minimum wage, and  who  are
probably not working twelve months out of
the year, and their whole family are doing this.
I mean, this is not a group of people who
have  the ability to go sign  up  and  do
continuing education kind of courses.  They
need this training.  Many of them do not
speak English. Many of them  do  not read
English  or Spanish.  This simply cannot be a
burden on them. They're doing a job. They
deserve  minimal protection.
    As far as enforcement goes, I read in the
Texas   Agri-News   the   other day  that
enforcement is  here, and I'm glad to hear that.
That's great, and I hope there's more of it.
We did  an informal survey in our office on
farmworkers by asking them, "Have you been
trained?" etc. What we got from this was that
27%  of farmworkers  in  Texas had been
trained.  Twenty-two percent nationwide had
been trained. So this is right around  a quarter
or  a little  less  than  a quarter  or  more
[Inaudible]... probably in Texas, it was a little
higher because you have the Right-To-Know
stuff that's already in place.
     Another thing that we've seen and have
  some concerns about involves retaliation. We
  understand there are laws and regulations that
  say you can't retaliate against farmworkers if
  they try to do something under the Worker
  Protection Standard. I had a client who came
  to me and actually received training.  That's
  great, but then he was asked to enter a field
  that was  being sprayed, and  he had  just
  received his trainings. He said, "NO, I am not
  going  to  enter  that  field!  I've  just been
  trained. I know that's not good." So he didn't
  go in. He wasn't rehired the next year.  Other
  people were rehired. He had worked for this
  grower for  two years  and simply wasn't
  rehired the next year. Now, could we prove it
  in a court of law? I don't know, but you know
  it's there.  The concern is there,  and the
,  comments I  heard at  the vegetable growers'
  meeting, tell me that this is not an unrealistic
     So,  I hope that there will  be more
  enforcement    inspections,     preferably
  unannounced. We would like to see things of
  that nature.  We would also  like to see a
  procedure  for the workers to complain. I
  don't believe that there's any procedure for a
  farmworker to complain other than  coming to
  us and looking  into  filing a lawsuit.  For
  example, under Right-to-Know, they could go
  through TDA and make a complaint, there's
  a process for this. There doesn't seem to be
  a process  for WPS.   We encourage you to
  implement a process for farmworkers to make
  complaints about retaliation and other such
  actions under WPS.
    We'd like to see there be a zero-day grace
  period. A person can be injured by pesticides
                                                                            Texas  83

           during the first five days just as easily as they
           could be  injured after the first five days.
           Granted that there is that requirement that
           certain  information  be   given  to   the
           farmworkers. And they're good, but we'd like
           to see more. We would at least like to see that
           you hand  out those little pocket size guides
           that  EPA uses.   I think they're  terrific.
           Require them to be given—that would be an
           easy  thing to do. Handing them out would
           not be an "undo-ably" burdensome thing, and
           I would suggest that if you don't reduce it
           down  to  a zero-day  grace  period,  or
           something like what's done in Texas, have
           crop sheets.  They're great.  I've got some; I
           could give you some. They show which crops
           have which type of pesticides, during which
           times of the year, and they have these great
           illustrations that make it very clear what kinds
           of symptoms you might get. They also have
           what to look out for and what you should do
           in case of exposure. The crop sheets are good
           because you  have people who don't  read,
           whether it's in Spanish or English.
              Having things like  the  little EPA book
           with  the illustrations like  the crop sheets is
           tremendously useful, as are these posters. I
           was admiring them earlier.  To the extent that
           they could be added as a requirement, they
           could require them be posted out  on the
           farms.  This would be great. If not required,
           then suggested strongly that they post them.
           It would also be a good tiling to have them
           required at the site of the farm labor camps.
           You know, that is somewhere everybody is
           going to  see them when they are traveling
           through as migrants who are generally living in
           labor camps. It's a centralized location where
everybody is and where certainly they can
conduct trainings as well. But these posters
will be helpful. Especially because somebody
might not realize that they've  been injured
until later and gone home, and it would be
good for them to have the access to where
they could call to get helpful care, etc.
    We disagree with the statement made by
the representative of Texas Citrus Mutual. We
ask   that   you   do   not   reduce  the
decontamination site. The time period during
the restricted entry interval does not mean it
is safe after three days and certainly everybody
who's sitting here from the EPA knows that
it's  an  approximation.  Rules  regarding
pesticides and most chemicals will just predict
the best that they can.  Generally speaking,
they don't have tests that have been done on
humans. We have biological studies.  We have
studies done on animals. We still don't know
all the long-term effects of pesticides. We
know that mixing occurs  between different
chemicals, but there's not a good source that
says, "Well,  this is what happens when you
mix methyl  parathion with Dursban: you're
going to get  10 times the reaction or 50 times
the reaction."  These  are just things that we
just don't know.  So we ask that you don't
make this any less than it already is.  It's an
easy requirement that can be followed, I think.
    OK. One last thing I would encourage
you to  add to the requirement right now.
Individuals are required to keep records for
only 30 days. We would encourage you to do
what Texas  does and  require the farmers to
keep the records for at least 30 years.
84 Texas

    Vikki Flores:  Hello, my name is Vikki
Flores.  I'm from the Farm Worker Health
and Safely Project at Texas Rural Legal Aid
where I am employed.   It's dedicated  to
protecting farmworkers and the environment
from hazards of pesticides.   We promote
safer, more ecologically sound alternatives and
protective policies. I am here today on behalf
of  farmworkers, to  express their concerns
over certain regulations, under the Worker
Protection Standard.
    Of particular  concern  is the  training
requirement for farmworkers.  Under die
federal Worker Protection Standard, farm-
workers are only required to receive training
once every five years. This is not enough.
Well-educated persons—for instance, lawyers—
cannot remember the content of classes for
trainings they attended a year ago. How can
we  expect farmworkers, most of whom have
very little formal education, to remember a
safety training about pesticides  for five years?
For several years, I was involved in training
farmworkers on the hazards of pesticides and
how  to  protect themselves.   Each time, I
would conduct a  training for a group  of
workers  I had trained the year before, there
were always comments  from  persons  who
were glad to  receive the information again,
because  they  or  someone they  knew had
suffered   health   effects   from  pesticide
poisoning. They had forgotten the symptoms
and related their problems to  the flu or  to
    I understand the growers had expressed
concern   about  being  responsible   for
compliance with  the Worker  Protection
Standards  when  they  use  farm  labor
 contractors.  Growers should be responsible
 for compliance for a number of reasons. The
 first and  the most obvious  reason is that
 farmworkers are the  growers'  employees,
 working on the growers' land, handling the
 growers' produce and are exposed to the
 growers' pesticides.   It is not enough for
 contractors to be responsible for compliance.
 If a farmworker is poisoned, under the law,
 the grower is most likely going to be liable
 ultimately.  Therefore, it is to the growers'
 advantage to make sure workers are properly
 trained and are not exposed to pesticides.
    In addition,  my experience with  farm
 labor contractors or crew leaders is that they
 are  often  no  more  educated  than  the
 farmworkers themselves.  Many cannot read
 and therefore  cannot go  through a WPS
 training manual,  even  in  Spanish.  I don't
 think training would be done if crew leaders
 were the ones required to do it.  Most crew
 leaders don't see pesticide poisoning as  a
 serious threat to their workers.  This is evident
 by the fact that most of them do not respond
 to requests  from workers  for medical care
 after an exposure and often merrily tell them
 to go and see a curandero, a witch doctor. They
 most often will not report injuries to the
 growers and lie about what happened when
 they do. The reality is that most crew leaders
would not find it necessary to train  their
workers and would find ways to get around it.
They are more concerned in turning a quick
 buck than they are with compliance of the law
 or even following the exclusive directions they
 receive from the grower for -whom they are
                                                                            Texas  85

              I have worked with perhaps 50 people
          who have been injured because of pesticide
          exposure. These cases include a man who had
          an eye  removed, another who had a  leg
          amputated, others left permanently disabled
          because of severe respiratory damage. The
          circumstances of their injuries and the extent
          of the injuries varied, but there are common
          factors in all of these cases. In each case, the
          person  injured  did  not receive adequate
          training.  It was not warranted by the danger
          of chemicals they were working with. It is
          essential  that  training  be  conducted with
          qualified individuals with adequate knowledge
          and information on at least a yearly basis.
              Another area of concern is the re-entry
          period. One case which I believe will illustrate
          the need to reinforce longer re-entry periods
          involves a family that suffered severe health
          problems when they were exposed to Fury,
          which had been sprayed a  couple of hours
          before  they were asked to  work  in  that
          particular field.  Not only  were the family
          members who worked in the field poisoned,
          but their little toddler was also exposed when
          one of the parents picked him up after coming
          home from work. Three years later, the child
          is  still experiencing  severe  skin problems.
          There is no doubt in my mind that shortening
          the re-entry period will create more situations
          like this one. We cannot say strongly enough
          that training farmworkers is one of the most
          important mechanisms for protecting workers
           and that the re-entry period should not be
           shortened if we want to protect farmworkers
           from the adverse health  problems.   Thank
    Douglass Stephenson:  It seems like I
started with the Texas Agricultural Extension
Service   Worker   Protection   Education
Program about the time the rule went into
effect Working for one of the most complex
or largest extension services offered in the
United States, we have to do a lot of greeting
clientele. With various audiences, one of the
problems that presented itself and we had to
overcome,  is  that many county extension
agents schedule their work a year in advance,
including all their meetings. It's difficult to
reschedule  additional  meetings  to  educate
clientele. I believe, including  all of the citizens
of  Texas, we have somewhat  close to 20
million clientele, and we have better than half
a million agricultural clientele that are included
in programs all of this time.
    In addition to this, we  have long range
extension plans called LREPs. These are five-
year plans, and fortunately, the outreach part
of  the  program, most of  the  agents  have
policy and regulatory education as one of their
top items.   This  gave  us a leg up, and we
began by training  more than  300  county
extension agents and extension specialists on
how to  educate our clientele in 1994.  We
didn't anticipate any delay  in the  program,
although we had a delay on certain parts of
the program.   The  legislative  action  in
Washington gave us a breather. We didn't lack
any of our training efforts and our extension
agents in more than 240 counties in Texas
began training trainers, private  commercial
applicators,  and  in addition, workers  and
handlers. We had a legislative  mandate in
more than 200 Texas counties to train under
the Texas  Agricultural Right-to-Know Act
86  T«xas

 passed in 1987 and continued these programs
 which included Worker Protection Standard
 trainings.   We served in the last couple of
 years more than 6,400 of our clientele, with
 700 meetings, an average of 20 or 25.  This
 doesn't include figures I have yet to receive
 from 1995. These education meetings were
 primarily at county and local levels.
    Now, let me talk a little about some of the
 problems we have experienced. Early on, we
 discovered there was a shortage of training
 materials, worker training tapes, videos, slide
 sets, etc. As these came on line, it got a lot
 easier.  We had more requests from county
 agents for educational material than we could
 deliver. By the end of the first year, we had
 training materials in the hands of all of our
 county  agents. Audio visual libraries were
 established so that materials could be checked
 out. We had agreements with the producers
 of  those  tapes—Michigan  State Extension
 Service, Idaho State, and  the University of
 Florida—to copy these materials and distribute
 them to our clientele (not for sale).
    Another problem was  misunderstanding
 about the trainings, which began in late  1994
 and continued in  1995,  as  the  deadline
 approached for farm owners  to get  the
workers trained.  One of the misconceptions
was that they send their workers to watch the
 tape, and then come back to the farm/ranch
 to get their card.  Now, the producer is the
licensed applicator and could sign, and we had
to fix this in a big hurry and explain to all of
our agents that they should never do this, and
that [Inaudible]...training would be fraudulent
—that the trainer had to be  present, had to
speak ... the   language  that  the   worker
 understood, and had to be able to be there to
 answer any questions the workers have during
 the training. Once this was clear, it only took
 about two weeks to get all our people set up.
 It would have helped to have a letter go out
 from our Director of Agricultural Education
 programs, Dr. Kyle Smith, who works for our
 extension director here in Harlingen. Once
 this was out of the way, that was probably the
 most serious problem we had early on.
    A present problem we have incurred since
 last  year is the addition of around 15,000
 additional clientele.  They were included in the
 program when the interpretive guidance group
 decided that agricultural operations that grow
 their own feed for their own consumption are
 included. (Those agricultural commodities are
 indeed in non-compliance.)  At the start of
 the program, we had this understanding that
 this   was the  way it  was going  to  be
 interpreted—as plants for sale, like plants in
 greenhouses and  nurseries,  farms, and  etc.
 Included in this were our clientele, which is
 about  15,000  more   ranchers,   livestock
 operations that go there to feed. So, we had
 to hurry to  get them upgraded in 1994
 (correction, March 31,1995), and we managed
 to accomplish this before the end of the year.
   Presently, we are uncertain that this is still
 an ongoing education  process.  This  has
 always been  uncertain.  We  always have
 questions about this  every time we have
 meetings.  We have questioned this  year-in
and year-out, and the question always comes
up the same.  Our question revolves around
the differences between Texas Agricultural
Right-to-Know Act and the requirements of
the Worker Protection Standard: "If we don't
                                                                            Texas  87

          do anything else, what do we do?" We still
          have to address those problems. There are
          certain   people,  included   in  the  Texas
          Agricultural Right-to-Know, that do have to
          comply with WPS, and  they have to  turn
          around and comply with all those stringent
          regulations that occur under Right-to-Know.
          There is also a present uncertainty, and we still
          get questions about where to get cards. We
          thought we had this solved, but we still get
          questions. I get about one a week, that would
          make about 52 questions a year.  So, 52 out of
          60,000 plus clientele I meet.
              We have some present needs, and we wish
          that EPA had helped us as educators with
          these things. This is an information age and
          computers are a resource  available to our
          clientele,  not necessarily to the agricultural
          workers, but most have [Inaudible]... Most of
          them are computerized by now, and we wish
          we had an information base to gather and give
          copies   of  the  Texas   Department  of
          Agriculture's  Right-to-Know laws and regu-
          ations, Texas pesticide laws and regulations,
          Texas herbicide laws and regulations.  What
          we wish we had is an electronic version either
          in ASCII format, WordPerfect or Microsoft
          Word  that  contains  Worker  Protection
          Standard CFR156 and, most importantly, 170.
          Now, that would include the restricted re-
          entry intervals for the various pesticides, and
          we would like  to include these in  our own
          information  bases.  So all  of our clientele
          would have to comply with this regulation.
          We also wish  we had the WPS inspection
          guide for the compliance inspections.  This
          would  help  our clientele  have immediate
          access to the various things they must comply
with.  This would be a nice check list. They
could search it by any word. For REI, they
could search by commodity; they could search
by various things that they had five minutes to,
understand, etc.
    In record keeping, we want a developed
electronic record keeping requirement that
meets WPS, as well as the Texas Agricultural
Right-to-Know Law.  This  would be made
available to our clients.  This would allow
them to apply it to  their record keeping
requirement, and they can keep their records.
So, now all we need is the clearance from the
various agencies that could help. Thank you.

    Maria A. Salinas: My name is Maria A.
Salinas.    On  November 3, 1995, I was
employed through a farm labor contractor by
a large packing shed in Mission, Texas. As of
November 3, 1995,  I have been working for
this  employer  for  approximately three
months, yet I never received any training on
how to  protect myself from pesticides.  I
never received copies of any crop sheets. On
November 3,1995,1 was picking bell peppers
when I noticed them covered with white dust.
I was wearing gloves, a long sleeved shirt, long
pants, a hat and a scarf that covered my head
and neck. My employer did not provide this
protective clothing nor did he advise me to
wear it.  I wore this to protect myself. Even
with this protective clothing, my face starting
burning.  At the end  of the day, we went
home. I showered, but my face got worse.
    The next morning, November 4, 1995,1
reported to work and I worked until lunch but
I  had to go  home because my condition
worsened.  The burning and  itching was
88  Texas

unbearable.  The crew leader was not there
that day, so I told one of the workers I was
leaving.  Neither the packing shed or the crew
leader would have sent me to a doctor so I
•went on my own to a doctor in Mexico. The
doctor  told me  I had been poisoned by
pesticides. Another woman who was under a
different crew leader was also poisoned and
that crew leader sent her to a doctor. During
the whole time I was working for this packing
shed and crew leader, no one ever told us
when a field was to be sprayed  or when it had
been sprayed or what it had been sprayed
with. Also, while there was water available for
washing, it was always dirty and there was no
soap. These are my comments. Thank you.

    Bobby Simoneaux: Good evening. My
name  is  Bobby Simoneaux, Director of
Pesticide     Environmental      Programs
representing Commissioner Bob Odem in the
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and
Forestry (LDAF).  I would like  to applaud the
EPA in its efforts to assess the first full year of
implementation  of the Worker  Protection
Standard regulations and  in seeking input to
possible  modifications  in order  for the
regulations to become workable  in the real
world. Just as we believe that education is the
backbone  of  our   FIFRA   enforcement
program, we also believe that a  strong Worker
Protection Standard Program will achieve the
goals intended.   This  can only  be accom-
plished  by  strong  education efforts.   In
Louisiana, we have set up a strong cooperative
effort between the Department of Agriculture,
Cooperative  Extension   Service,  grower
groups, and worker groups to provide the
needed training for the implementation of the
Worker Protection Standard.  It is also our
belief that compliance assistance can be a very
useful tool in achieving full compliance of the
regulated community.
    In light of this, LDAF Pesticide Division,
with the extremely helpful Region 6's Jerry
Oglesby, put on several training sessions to
educate our own 80-plus inspectors about the
WPS regulations. An interesting outcome of
these sessions, which involved, as I said, 80-
plus inspectors, was the amount of confusion
that this generated.  I believe that this is a
good indicator as to the amount of confusion
that WPS  has created for  the regulated
community.  I'm not trying to indicate that
WPS would never be understood. I'm saying
that  it will  take  time, cooperation  and
education to develop the understanding that
will  eventually lead to compliance.  I was
fortunate to  be able to attend the  public
hearing held  in Mississippi, and I  did hear
some of the concerns which I'm sure you
have already heard.  Just to  highlight some
that I did hear in Mississippi and have not
heard so far today, but I did  hear someone
touch on heat stress being the number one
concern  dealing with  personal protective
equipment.  I know you all will be here in the
next couple of days, doing some touring and
so forth. I'm sure that you'll hear a lot about
heat stress and the kind of conditions that will
apply in South Texas and are  very similar in
South Louisiana in June, July, and August.
We're talking 100-plus temperatures and 100-
plus humidity.  It's very difficult to comply
with some of the PPE that is required. So
that was one of the major concerns.
                                                                           Texas  89

              Another  major concern  was with  the
           restricted entry intervals. There's still a lot of
           confusion  on   restricted  entry  intervals,
           especially dealing with the posting.  I think
           there's a lot clarification that needs to be done
           in that area.
              Another thing that was pointed out was
           that there were special concerns in such areas
           as nurseries, especially those nurseries  in the
           retail business.  And also, there were special
           concerns with research—not only with USDA
           research people, but also the state universities
           that have research plots, especially in areas
           where research plots are actually one plant in
           a pot and then applying different pesticides to
           different pots.
              In the area of training materials, I want to
           compliment  EPA  on the  quality  of  the
           training materials that have been provided.
           Although some of them were not provided in
           a timely fashion, they were of  very high
           quality.  I would like to say, in the State of
           Louisiana, we are in desperate need right now
           of the  little green  inspector  field  pocket
           manuals.  I would appreciate getting those just
           as soon as we can, but overall, the quality of
           the training material has been very good.
              In closing, I would like to encourage the
           continued cooperative effort between  the
           EPA  (including the  regions),  SELs,  the
           Extension   Service,   and  the  regulated
           community   to   stay  committed  to  the
           clarification of the rule using a common sense
           approach. Thank you.

              Allyn Davis:  Thank you.  Do we have
           anyone else that has signed up to speak? Is
there anyone  in  the audience who hasn't
signed up that would like to speak?  OK.

    Ned Meister:    I'm  Ned Meister,  the
Director  of Commodity  and  Regulatory
Activities for the Texas Farm Bureau.   Dr.
Goldman, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kozak, I appreciate
the opportunity, but I really didn't come here
this evening to give a statement; however, I
would like to address a few of the comments
made. First of all, I appreciate you all coming
out to  the field to listen to  producers  and
workers and hear  their concerns about the
current WPS program. We feel that the WPS
program is necessary.  I think over the year
that it's been in effect, in the times I  have
worked  on it, it has heightened the awareness
of safety in the agricultural place, and I think
the result of that is  excellent. The program is
a good program, and with a little fine tuning,
I think it will work.
    Some  of the  difficulties  are,  as  we
recognize, hard to work with and a lot of
times,  details inadvertently  get lost   and
shuffled especially in times of intense activity
and whatnot. If we made some adjustments
or  just pared down some—not necessarily
pared it down as much as we intend...   For
example, with large numbers of workers from
the work force, it's difficult to determine those
who have been trained.  And sometimes, as
the representative from the Texas Rural Legal
Aid indicated, not  all workers  are  getting
trained.  I can guarantee it's really  not an
intended thing, but it does  happen. We would
like to make sure it doesn't happen.
    Some of the comments with respect to
the 30 days after the REI program should be
90  Texas

revisited.  I say that only in that, so far as I
understand it, there's a question as to whether
EPA needs 30 years or 30 days. So we need
to take a look at that I think the quarter mile
rule should be eliminated.   In  good con-
science, I can't see any reason as to why we
would have that  in place. With the tech-
nology we have today, off target depositions
are being reduced or eliminated. Maybe if not
eliminated [Inaudible]... let's keep that in mind.
I think it's important, at least let's revisit. We
need to revisit it.  If you apply a product to
the field, and you have a field next to it, even
if it's  up  wind from where  that field was
(within a  quarter  mile), you  have a  certain
obligation on each application made. And the
last  thing is employers.   This  has been
something we tried to get our friends and
labor sides  to understand, unsuccessfully I
might add. While employers feel confident to
train workers and handlers, then so should the
workers and handlers be  held accountable.
I'm pretty sure you know what  I'm  talking
about. OK. Thank you.

   Jim Parkhill:  My name is Jim Parkhill.  I
represent  International  Pickle  Companies,
South  Texas Harvest and Sierra  Farms, the
packing  shed operations, the  harvesting
service, and employees.  I didn't come with
any  prepared  comments  today,  but after
hearing some remarks, I would like to make a
few observations.  In our company, we will
employ during the picking season a minimum
of 600, perhaps as many as 1,000 farmworkers
per day, in our harvest operations. Given the
usual amount of turnover, which you normally
find, over the life of a  season like this, we
might be needing perhaps as many as 2,000
individuals that we would have to ensure have
received EPA training. Our area of operation
may include as many as 40 or 45 different field
locations in a given day, spread over a two or
three county area.   Despite this,  it might
surprise some people here to know, we do not
find  compliance  with  WPS   particularly
burdensome.  We think it's  a good law, a
necessary law, and we  have not found  or
encountered any particular   problems  in
implementing training aspects of this law even
given the kind of scale that I just referred to.
With a couple of exceptions, and they  are
fairly minor things.
    One exception is gray areas.  They still
exist; between our responsibilities as employer
and between  the  Texas  Department   of
Agriculture Right-to-Know Law and WPS.
There are many  redundancies where we  are
accomplishing simply, essentially, the same
role, when we have to perform a specific
compliance  task  in two different ways.   A
classic example may be  the handing out  or
reading of crop sheets (however, after hearing
Ms. Sebesta's recommendation, we didn't do
this) [Inaudible]... but there are a number of
gray areas. The  things we did do -were over
and above what we are doing to comply with
WPS, and we must also continue to do this to
stay in compliance with the Right-to-Know
Law. We understand there was some question
that the Texas Law would be sunsetted, but
it's  still on the books, so we still have some
gray areas there.
    The other problem we have  is relatively
minor in the whole scope of things, but it still
represents a problem. I just referred to the
                                                                            Texas  91

           kind of logistics that we are dealing with and
           the huge number of people with amount of
           turnover. I think we have a system that we're
           doing under the circumstances, of filling jobs
           and getting the workers trained.  However,
           when you're dealing with that many people,
           that amount of turnover, that big an area,
           during a relatively short season, we always run
           the  risk that there's  going to be  some
           individual out  there who falls  through the
           cracks.   Somebody that came in  mid-way
           through the season after we went through the
           training exercises, somebody that only came
           out for a short period of time, somebody that
           came out and said, "Yes, I have been trained,
           but I  don't  have my card  today," and
           somebody forgets to follow up on  it.  It's a
           very fractional, small percentage of our total
           effort^ but it does happen.  I'll be the first to
           admit that it does happen.  Our problem is,
           how can we build a safety net to  catch the
           people who fall through the crack?
              And when I refer to a safety net,  let me
           give you an  example:  We have the  same
           problem with the   Right-to-Know  Law
           requiring the handing out and  reading of crop
           sheets.    However,  there  is  always that
           possibility that somebody happened to get out
           there that didn't get the crop sheet or didn't
           get it read to them, whatever the case. This
           involves  very  few  individuals,  but  it can
           happen. We solved that problem with a safety
           net  that we built for ourselves by using a
           recorded tape with all of the crop sheets on it
           and also including other  information that
           wasn't  even required by law.  We recorded a
           tape.  We have numerous hands in vehicles
           that are in the fields everyday. We equipped
 those vehicles with loud speakers  that play
 those tapes as they make it through those
 fields, over and over again, day after day, to
 the extent where farmworkers would risk not
 coming in. A problem is that the farmworkers
 heard the thing so many darn times, but at
 least if we have that one person out there that
 fell  through  the  cracks,  he/she got  the
    Our problem with WPS is that we cannot
 build a  safety net to  pick  up those loose
 individuals who fall through the gap.  We
 cannot build a safety net because of the WPS
 training.  The tape is audio/visual and requires
 the opportunity for questions and answers.
 So, I'm merely saying  this is a problem we
 have and have not found a way to deal with it.
 We can't build a safety net to ensure 100%
 safety, instead we must settle for 99.8. percent.
 I  don't know if there  is  some  provision or
 some way that something like providing the
 audio training would  be,  if not  accepted,
 would be considered not in violation. Would
 it be OK if this person doesn't have a card
 even though he has heard that WPS training
 tape in audio form  50 times during the course
 of the season?  So we will now give the
i farmworker the opportunity to get the visual,
 or give the tape portion  of it, without citing us
 as being in violation. A big problem we have
 now  is, how do we manage to make sure we
 catch that one percent that may fall through
 the cracks?
    I would also like to say I like Ms. Sebesta's
 suggestion on having a central data system.
 This  might be one of the ways that we could
 pick up those new individuals that fall through
92  Texas

the gap, and we have some new way to check
up on them.
   I  also  know  there  is  some concern
expressed tonight over what's being referred
to as crew leaders doing the trainings.  We
accomplished our training before with farm
labor contractors, those with huge numbers of
people we use.  We  do not employ every
individual worker directly, because we couldn't
even run that kind of payroll. So we use the
farm labor contractor.  They are obligated
under our contract to provide  this training,
but  that doesn't mean we don't have to
monitor and police everything they do. Our
system  is that we train  the  farm laborer
contractor as a trainer and issue them a green
card.  We supply him with all of the materials
necessary to train his workers as workers.  We
give them the blue  card and register  the
number of the blue cards that we have handed
out to him.  Obviously, we will have other
people in this crew that received the training
elsewhere, but we find that system has worked
very well.
    In fact,  the  labor contractor is  very
diligent about educating his people. He has
broken an almost impossible task of training
1,000  or  1,500  people  down into small
manageable groups of people for training.  We
have a system to monitor the video training as
long as the labor contractor supplies us with a
list of EPA card numbers which were handed
out to the workers who were trained. That's
basically it.

    Allyn Davis: Just a quick question.  Is it
Mr. Markhill?
   Jim Parkhill:  Parkhill, yes.

   Allyn Davis:  Parkhill.  Sounds as though
you've gone through a lot of trouble to set up
an infrastructure to use these pickup trucks
with  the  audio  tapes and  so  forth.   It's
probably not an easy solution for problems of
a person who falls through the cracks.  Have
you thought of using the same mechanisms as
you were using for the group for workers in
the field?

   Jim Parkhill: We do that. We have added
certain things to the TAN WPS  tape that
would take a lot  off of the  audio  visual
material. At the  end of that tape, one of our
own people has added a recording that states,
"It is a requirement of the law that you receive
this training.  It  is a requirement of the law
that you have your training prior to your first
five days in the field.  If you have  not obtained
this  training, contact us, not your farm labor
contractor."   We  give them the  company
name and the company telephone number so
they  can  contact us  immediately.   So, yes,
that's one of the ways we've tried to provide a
safety net, but if the worker doesn't contact us
and  says, "Hey, I haven't been trained under
this and have been working here," we have no
way of knowing who that specific individual is
if he or she doesn't speak up. Another thing
we do on that tape  is, at the same time we're
playing that tape, we repeat the information
over the fields that we're working in that day.
The spray history is spray painted. That's how
we include that information in addition to the
                                                                             Texas  93

              Allyn Davis: Thank you. Would anyone
           else like to speak?

              Rick Enriquez:  Yes.  My name is Rick
           Enriquez. I am a foreman.  I guess I'm the
           bulk of what everyone is talking about.  As
           foreman, I've got to say the buck stops here.
           One thing that hasn't been addressed by EPA,
           as far as the pesticide issue, has been Mexico.
           As a foreman, we also deal with the packing
           shed and shipping. We also deal with the off
           season markets. We have a lot of people who
           come in contact with pesticides.  As far as
           pesticide poisonings go, we don't know how
           to handle them because we have no MSDS.
           We have no idea where our producers spray
           or what  they contain.   Hopefully, in the
           future, we can address this so you can tell us
           what we need to do so we can express to our
           farmworkers what needs to be done. We, at
           our package shed, provide all the MSDS
           information that our farmworkers are exposed
           to. We also train our shed employees.
              One of the comments that most of the
           farmers have or have had is that we've gone to
           meetings  and the subject was  brought  up
           about the employers and [Inaudible]... Most of
           the time, we've had experience working out in
           the fields at one time or the other.  It's very
           rare that I hire a worker that doesn't have any
           experience because I won't have any time to
           spend  in my work  environment to teach
           someone new. It's our  feeling that some of
           the burden of the training should be put on
           the workers.  Yes, sometimes  some of the
           workers working for us  don't know how to
           read English. Some of them don't have any
           kind of education, but  for some reason or
another, they always have the education and
know-how to be able to  come up with the
driver's license, social security number, place
to live, and where to go to buy food. We feel
that if they have this education in order to live
in the United States, then  they should be put
into the environment where they need to go
for training.  Most  of the comments have
been, "I've hired people that I haven't seen for
two or three months and I won't see." I have
a lot of workers that come in and tell me that
they've lost their cards. Do I re-train them?
When I re-train them, do  I just issue them a
new card? There's nothing in the regulations
that stipulates what to do when a worker
comes in and says, "I was trained in Idaho, but
I don't have  a card.  I lost it sometime last
year."  So,  in order to be safe, we have the
inspectors come through, and we conduct a

    Speaker from Audience: Another issue
mentioned here was all the  new regulations
that are in effect. The only ones who usually
find out  about the  regulation  changes are
TDA, the inspectors,  or Texas A&M.  We
farmers don't hear about changes until we
read something in the newspapers  or hear
something in  a meeting that we were invited
to. One of the biggest supporters we have is
the Texas  Produce  Association,  and it  is
through Jerry's letters that we find out about
some of the changes.  Sometimes it comes too
late because we should have been complying
with these changes two or three months ago.
We didn't know.  So then we're trying to train
all of the workers to comply with the changes
and during the process, somebody gets hurt or
94  Texas

somebody gets sick.  So, I'm hoping that
somewhere in the future, EPA figures some
way to get the farmers to comply with new
rules because you're understaffed and so is
TDA.   We have one inspector here that
covers almost six or seven counties.   One
county alone has 1,000 farms.  Other than
that, that's all we have to say. Thank you.

    Simon Tamez: My name is Simon Tamez.
I'm the safety coordinator for Stock Produce
in Starr County. First of all, I wanted  to
compliment EPA on the program and the
concern for the safety of the workers, which
I strongly believe. We have no problem with
WPS. On the training standpoint, we have no
problem in the training.  This is due to the
fact that I think Stock Produce is fortunate in
that they can afford a safety coordinator.
Well, there's a lot of small farmers out there
that cannot afford a  safety coordinator where
they  might  encounter  some  of  these
problems. I  don't have any complaints at all.
The only  thing I'm  concerned  about  is
paperwork.   Paperwork, the  repetition  of
recording and keeping these records for a
certain period of time. For example, we have
a form that we must  post in a centrally located
area by regulation standards. Which is good.
OK, this is good, but I think in the real world,
like I mentioned a little while ago, I think this
is a no-no.
    The reason why  I'm saying this is because,
again, in the real world, the people that are
coming to work, like right now, for example,
are harvesting onions. They have only one
thing  in  mind when  they come  in the
morning.  I would too. They go straight out
to the field because they can see those onions
out there.   There's  plenty out  there, and
they're making good money. That's what they
have on their minds. They are not going to
stop and go a hundred feet to the left or to
the right to go  and look at the form to  see
what type of pesticide was applied there. This
is the rule I'm talking about. When they come
out of the field, they have only one thing on
their minds and that's  going home because
they're so tired, you  see. Now what are we
going to do with  the form that states that a
pesticide has been applied, the rate that was
applied, the EPA registration number and the
re-entry interval?  All of this  information is
available  on the  board and  not only this
information is available, but also other laws
that are  required by the  federal and state
government such as the Right-to-Know law.
All of this information is located right on the
board. Those boards are located to the right
of the restrooms, which everybody visits at
least once a day, if nothing else, to wash their
hands because   there's  water,  soap  and
everything available  there.   Now, this is
something that I'm not fighting.  Like I told
one inspector the other day, it's just that we're
duplicating these things.  Sometimes I feel that
we are fighting paperwork, and I feel that the
paper is winning. So that's the only thing I
have to say.
    Also,  another thing that I'm concerned
about is that we have to record when we tell
the individual, the applicator and/or handler,
the type of chemical from the restricted-use
standpoint, the type of pesticide he's going to
apply soon.  Well,  he's been through  the
training already.  Now, why just that pesticide?
                                                                            Texas  95

           What is the difference between a restricted use
           pesticide and a non-restricted use pesticide?
           They're both just as dangerous. So, let's make
           up some rules. That's it.  Thank you.

               Allyn Davis:  Would anyone else like to
           speak? This really is a unique opportunity
           because Dr.  Goldman  really  makes  the
           decisions about the pesticides programs, and
           she's here  to hear how the first  year  of
           implementation  of the Worker Protection
           Standard has gone.

               Dr. Lynn Goldman:  What I thought I
           would  do  is  respond  to  some  of  the
           comments that were made and then ... [Taping
           suspended while tape was changed]  Perhaps
           after I give my response to some of the things
           I have heard here tonight, maybe we would
           have the time, if people want, to have some
           further discussion. In no particular order,  I
           think there were a number of things in the
           comments I would like to address.  In the first
           place, I just want to once again thank all of
           you for coming here tonight and particularly
           those  of  you  who came  forward with
           comments. I also want to offer to the rest of
           you, who did not feel comfortable making
           comments here  at the meeting,  that you're
           certainly welcome to give us your comments
           in writing. We will look at those as well, and
           so please feel free to continue to provide us
           with input because I think it's so important.
               One of the  consistent messages that I
           heard here tonight had to do with the issue of
           who is responsible for implementation of the
           Worker  Protection  Standard,   and  the
           responsibility is  really shared by everybody
 involved in the process.  Everybody in this
 room has some responsibility for making sure
 that the workers are protected.  Certainly,
 those who hire the workers and control the
 conditions of employment, the owners of the
 farms, the  contractors,  all of them have
 responsibility.  I like what I heard about how
 some  are  beginning to  make contractual
 arrangements  between the farmers and the
 labor contractors. I think it's very important.
 After all, the labor contractor does work for
 the farmers, and my sense is that if there is a
 clear expectation that the  standard will be
 applied, that the labor contractors will do it.
 I think it is the responsibility of those who
 hire the labor contractors to make sure that
 that's absolutely clear.  Certainly if it isn't clear,
 then people cannot receive training, they will
 not   receive  the   needed  instructions.
    The other thing that came out as an issue
 is:  What  about  the responsibility  of the
 employees? Certainly the employees also have
 some responsibility.   The EPA has never
 believed that it's the job of the  farmer to
watch every employee every minute  of the
 day. Nobody can do that. You can't expect
 that in the real world,  and  in fact, what we do
 expect is that the information and the tools
have been provided, and that the opportunity
has  been  provided   so  the workers are
protected.   Certainly, it  is not possible to
watch every worker, every minute of every day
and make sure that they put on their gloves,
etc. I know our colleagues with the state and
other state agencies we work with are applying
common sense in  enforcement  of the rule.
What they are looking for is that a good faith
effort has been made, and that, in fact, people
96  Texas

have received the training and have received
the tools they need.
    Some of the comments I heard sounded
to me like things aren't going well everywhere.
It certainly would be disturbing to hear that
many workers are not receiving training. We
are conducting surveys.   EPA has hired a
contractor to help assess how well the training
is going.  It is very important to  us.  We
believe that the rule should result in a hundred
percent. I would be very disturbed if we came
out with  something like 20  to 25 percent,
which is the statistic that I heard rumored.  It
is certainly illegal to refuse to hire an individual
because they don't have  cards. It is easy to
dock pay if they don't have  the card. The
responsibility of the farmer is to provide the
training,  and if there  is not proof of the
training, the right thing to do is to go ahead
and do the training.  I do believe there are
instances  where the  workers  believe they
won't be hired unless they say they have had
training, whether they had training or not.
Sometimes  they say they don't have  a card
because  they have not  really attended  a
training. I would take it for granted those are
people that haven't  been  trained.  They
probably  haven't been trained. I think that
the safest assumption  is they are not trained.
I think the state agency will keep at it.  We've
been very interested in how the EPA standard
fits into Texas' Right-to-Know Law.
    I've  seen some  of the  material that
Extension has  put together, and  it's really
good  material.   I think they've  done  a
wonderful job  of planning.  They put, for
example, the posting requirements together  in
a way that looks to me like I can do it pretty
easily and wouldn't take a lot of time to do,
and I don't think that the two are necessarily
at odds with each other. I will say that we've
had a willingness to comply. I personally felt
strongly  that where a state is already doing
something that clearly accomplishes the same
purpose  as the Worker Protection Standard,
we should be willing to consider their efforts
and not  require  that another thing be done
that basically does the same thing. I can point
to  a  couple of  instances; for  example,
California, where  they  have a sign  that  is
already in place  which  the   farmworkers
actually liked better because of  the skull and
cross-bones on  it.  They liked  it better, the
farmers in California  liked it better and the
state  agency wants to keep it.  We did not
force them to change all of their signs to our
signs.  We didn't think a difference was made
by a sign, and I  think if there are equivalent
situations in  Texas, I would encourage the
Texas Department of Agriculture to come
forward with those situations.   I'm certainly
willing to consider them.
   As  far  as   I  know,  the  process  for
complaints—that issue came up in some of the
testimony—it's the same as the process you use
for the Texas Right-to-Know Law. It's exactly
the same process, it's  just a separate process.
In all, the implementation goes through the
state agency. So you should feel that whatever
you used in the past to file a complaint about
the Right-to-Know Law implementation, you
Can  use   that for the  Worker Protection
   The other thing I want to mention is just
the issue of getting information out there.  I
thought people made some really good points,
                                                                             Texas   97

      and I really would like to hear from all of you,
      especially the farmers. What do you need?  If
      we need to get information to you directly,
      what's the quickest way for us to do that?  I
      think we're more than willing to summarize
      the changes from the regulations and try  to
      get them into your journals, your newspapers,
      but we need to have a sense of what are the
      best vehicles for doing that.  We're  always
      trying to do outreach. We have tried to take
      these changes and take the rule itself and boil
      it all down in the simplest possible language
      that we can. If fact, we have a lot of that on
      the table.  A lot  of what's  there is basically
      some of the education hand-outs pnaudible]...
          I think one of the things that makes it
      complicated is, and I heard  this  today, we
      want a simpler version, but at the same time,
      we want interpretations of every circumstance
      that people might encounter.   Not as  a
      [Inaudible]... rule, so at the same time that
      we're trying to put out information, this gives
      you the simplified version. At the same time,
      we have this interpretive process going on
      with what we are trying  to  say.  We try  to
      cover every case that might happen and how
      one should handle it.  What should be the
      right thing to do under the standard? This is
      how we end up with very lengthy documents,
      something like  the  140-page  documents
      someone mentioned earlier.
          What I would advise  the farmers is that
      the interpretive guidance is not there to  be
      read  page-by-page  and  understood  and
      memorized. The interpretive guidance is there
      for you if you need questions answered from
      day to day. It is  there for you if you have a
      particular question or particular problem. For
example, say you didn't know what to  do
about putting out smudge-pots. You can find
what you need in the interpretive guidance,
but it isn't magic if you read all 140 pages.
The information you need to read, in other
words, has been summarized in a very brief
form.  We do have that table, but at the same
time we want to make the more complex
information available for you in case you need
it. I like the idea of an electronic version and
coincidentally, we are actually updating our
World Wide Web issued from my office and
EPA.  I'm going to go back to Washington
and say we've got to have a WPS page. I think
it's a great idea and this is another area where
I heard some specific suggestions about what
should  be  there,  but  if there are other
suggestions as well, be sure to put them up
there.   We have started putting all of our
regulations  on the Web, but organizing them
in one place is a little tedious, especially  for
   I  also  wanted  to point out that  the
materials up here, the posters, the other short
pocket booklets we have here, are designed to
meet  the requirements of the standard  for
posting.  For the first-day workers coming on
to  the  job, providing this information is
strongly recommended.  We also accept  the
use  of materials  that  are  roughly   the
equivalent It should have the same words on
it or have  the same information on it,  but
obviously we would like for these materials to
be made available to the people who aren't
complying.  We'll do what we can to ensure
we get this information out quickly.
    Last but not  least,  there was a very
interesting question  asked about  Mexican

produce. Someone asked what the guidelines
would be  for that,  and  that  would  be
something I want to go back and think about.
We have a major project for Mexico right now
on  pesticides because of NAFTA.  In fact,
one of the EPA staff is here today, Penny
Fenner-Crisp, who works with the Office of
Pesticides Programs. She has been involved in
this program. The program has brought them
into our rules, and we already had cooperation
from Canada when NAFTA came  on line.
Now we have a three-country cooperation on
the registration of pesticides. We are  basically
working with Mexico on the WPS standard.
They don't have the same kind of system we
have in place, and they have a long way to go.
The issue of imports is important to us, not
only from the standpoint of farmworkers but
also from the standpoint of the  consumers.
In our country, we are very concerned about
pesticides used on imports. I think we should
go back and look at the issue publicly,  then
come back and talk to you about it.
    So in closing, I again want to thank all of
you for being here tonight.  I'll open up the
floor if there is any need for further discussion
or  questions.  The suggestion was that the
pocket guides  could be distributed to local
health departments and  to churches.   I
suppose other community organizations are
also a good suggestion.  That's great because I
do think there needs to be lot of participation
by the community at large.  I talked about the
farmers, the farmworkers,  but others too.
Questions or comments? If not, what I'd like
to do is adjourn. The EPA folks may identify
themselves by raising their  hands so we know
who you are and also the folks from the Texas
Department of Agriculture.  I think what we
can do is stay around here  for a little while so
you can ask us about other information to
pass along to others.  We  have recorded this
session tonight, and we are going to take these
comments very seriously. Thank you.

    [Meeting adjourned]
                                                                          Texas  99

Registered  Participants in the Public Meeting
          Andy Cruz
          USDA-Agriculture Research Service

          Texas Farm Bureau

          Floyd H. Davis
          Edinburg, TX

          Rick Enriquez
          Bagley Produce Co. Inc.

          Vikki Floras
          Texas Rural Legal Aid

          Hector Flores
          Texas Dept. of Agriculture

          Pat Fogarty
          Strategic Interfaces

          KURV Radio

          J. Holterman
          Rhone Poulenc Ag. Co./Agri-women

          Fred G. Karle
          Texas Citrus Mutual/Texasweet

          Pat Kornegay
          Texas Agricultural Aviation Association
Wayne Labar
Cotton & Grain Producers Association of

Jerry Lemunyon

Linney Lyles
International Pickle Co.

Pablo Mayers, Jr.

David McCommas
USDA-Agriculture Research Service

Ned Meister
Texas Farm Bureau

Joyce Obst
Texas Citrus Mutual

Jim N. Parkhill
South Texas Harvesters, Inc. International
Pickle Co., Sierra Farms, Inc.

Jerry Pierson
Pioneer Hi-Bred

Sergio Rinar
Hetcat Sc.

Juana P. Rodriguez
100  Texas

Maria Idalia Salinas

Diana Salzman
Texas Dept. of Health

Patricia Schnitzel
Texas Dept. of Health

Emilie Sebesta
Texas Rural Legal Aid

Ana M. Silva
Mission, TX

Ebed Silva
Warehouse Farms
Bobby L. Simoneaux
Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture and Forestry

Eduardo R. Stein
USD A-Agriculture Research Service

Douglass E. Stevenson
Texas Agricultural Extension Service

Simon Tamez
Starr Produce Co.

Teresa Willis
Texas Dept. of Health
                                                                          Texas  101

Site Visits and  Small  Group Discussions
           Plantation Produce, Mission, TX
           •   April 25,1996, 8:30 sum.
           •   Tour of 7000-acre farm (onions, vegetables, grain, sorghum) and large-scale packing and
              shipping operation.
           •   EPA staff met with staff of Plantation Produce, Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Vegetable
              Association, Texas Produce Association, Texas Department of Agriculture.
           •   Among the topics discussed at the meeting were:

              —    Need for more careful planning due to REIs.

              —    Problems with requirement to provide washing/decontamination supplies for 30

              —    Turnover of workforce requires frequent training sessions.

              —    Reports of WPS signs being stolen.

              —    Some attendees had the misperception that all provisions of the rule are triggered
                    when a person comes within a quarter mile of a treated area.

           Rio Queen Citrus, McAllen, TX
           •   April 25,1996,10:00 sun.
           •   Visit to a citrus (grapefruit, oranges) farm.
           •   EPA staff met with staff of RioQueen Citrus staff, Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Vegetable
              Association, Texas Produce Association, Texas Department of Agriculture.
           •   Among the topics discussed at the meeting were:

              —    Use of PPE can lead to heat stress in warm climates.

              —    Concerns over employer liability if employee refuses to wear PPE.

              —    Some participants had the misperception that all provisions of the rule are triggered
                    when a person comes within a quarter mile of a treated area.

              —    Many workers want full labels in Spanish.
102  Texas

Roland Dusters, Edinburg, TX
•  April 25, 1996,11:30 a.m.
•  Tour of facilities of aerial and gound applicators.
•  EPA staff met with Blayne Roland, pilot; staff of Texas Agricultural Aviation Association,
   Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Vegetable Association, Texas Produce Association, Texas
   Department of Agriculture.
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —    Problems wearing PPE when getting in and out of airplane and when in cockpit.

   —    Requirement that commercial applicator notify the farm owner of a pesticide
          application within a reasonable time period. Commercial applicators are concerned
          that if there is no record of an oral notification, they could be held liable if anything

Farmworker Meeting, Hidalgo Park, Pharr, TX
•  April 25, 1996, 3:00 p.m.
•  EPA staff met with farmworkers; Juanita Cox, United Farm Workers; Raymond Gill, South
   Texas Civil Rights Project; Jose Sanchez, Texas Department of Agriculture.
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —    Participants' concerns about health risks associated with pesticides with short REIs
          and opposition to any shortening of the REIs.  They also stated that the 5-day grace
          period for training is too long, especially for seasonal and occasional farmworkers,
          and that the 5-year retraining interval should be shortened.

   —    Concerns about drift from fields, and workers being sprayed; lack of notification of
          workers about spraying; and worker housing located in the middle of fields.

   —    EPA discussed ongoing progress with the Pesticides Spray Drift Task Forces.

   —    Reported instances of farmworkers working right next to tractors spraying pesticides.
          Illegality of working under such conditions.

   —    Availability of training, protective equipment, crop sheets (fact sheets with
          information on pesticides used on particular crops).
                                                                           Texas  103

              —    Participants' suggestion that workers wear protective clothing at all times in the
                     fields, not just during REIs.

           Farmworker Meeting and Site Visit, San Juan, TX
           •  April 25,1996, 4:30 p.m.
           •  EPA staff met with farmworkers; Juanita Cox, United Farm Workers; Jose Sanchez and
              Randy Rivera, Texas Department of Agriculture.
           •  Among the topics discussed at the meeting were:

              —    Reports of airplanes spraying fields where people are working.

              —    Availability of training, protective equipment, crop sheets, warning signs.

              —    Apparent inconsistencies in understanding of what constitutes WPS pesticide safety
                     training.  Some workers said that they had not been trained but had received training
                     verification cards.

              —    Importance of reporting alleged violations of WPS regulations as soon as possible so
                     that investigators can take samples of clothing, soil, crops, etc.

              —    Problems In securing medical treatment.
104  Texas

Transcripts of Meetings with Farmworkers
April 25,1996
          Hidalgo Park, Pharr, Texas
              Tuanita Cox: Good afternoon!
                     Good afternoon!
              Juanita Cox:  We are going to begin our
          meeting now.  We have several people from
          the EPA in Washington. They had public
          hearings last night and several people testified,
          but we wanted them to come  to the colonias
          pabor camps] and talk to you personally about
          pesticide problems and especially about the
          new regulation called the Worker Protection
          Standard for the agricultural  worker.   So
          whether it  is field work or questions about
          colonias getting  sprayed when  the  planes
          come by, because we're surrounded by fields.
          Mrs. Lynn  Goldman and Mr. Jerry Oglesby,
          who is from Dallas, and this gentleman from
          the Agriculture Dept. in San Juan. Also these
          other folks who came with her.    Your
          questions will be part of an official record, just
          as if you had attended the meeting last night.
          All this will be recorded so it will all be part of
          the official record, not just the complaints but
          also the comments of  the people of the
          colonias. OK?  Well then, she is going to give
          you a brief explanation of what this  Worker
          Protection  Standard regulation is about. [To
          Dr. Goldman]: I  just told them a little  bit
          about who you  are and the hearings last night
          and that this is part of the official record, that
          it will be recorded just as if they had attended
the meeting and what we would like to do is
give a brief summary  of  the Worker Pro-
tection Standard.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  Yes. First I want to
thank all of you for coming here today.  I
know that you have taken time from your
duties to come here, but we do need the help
that you can give us by tellling us about your
experiences.  The Worker Protection  Stan-
dard is really very simple; it has three very
simple principles. One is  the principle that
you need to know what the risks are, you need
to know how to protect yourself. A second
principle is the principle that there needs to be
available the means to help you if you do get
exposed, to have treatment. And the third is
the principle of what  we call the re-entry
interval—not going into the field right after the
application of the pesticide.  Our principal
concern today is that, if you're working, are
you getting the training that you should get
before working with the pesticide?  Are the
signs going up to tell you -which pesticides are
being used in the field? And are the signs
going up to tell you about not going into the
fields while the pesticides are still recently
applied? Mainly we want to listen, so what I
want to do is  open  the meeting  to any
comments or questions that you have because
we're really here  to listen.

    Raymond Gill: I guess I would open up
with three points. My name is Raymond Gill,
                                                                                  Texas  105

           I'm the attorney and Project Director of the
           South Texas Civil Rights Project.  We work
           very closely with the farmworker community
           and the United Farm Workers. We litigate
           cases in state and federal courts on behalf of
           farmworkers' wage matters, pesticide matters,
           all matters having to do with the conditions
           under which farmworkers both  live and work.
           Just as a general matter I would say that the
           South Texas Project, and certainly the people
           that we represent have told us,  that  they
           oppose any shortening of the re-entry interval
           periods, so that if it's a 72-hour period, that
           that 72-hour period remain 72 hours and not
           become a 48 or 24-hour period.
              The second is that I believe there is a
           question as to whether or not growers are
           going to be required to provide the necessary
           training within five days or after five days that
           a person is hired for a particular agricultural
           employment because—and especially in the
           Rio Grande Valley, the seasonal  and the
           occasional nature of the farm work, some of
           which may last a day, two, three, four or five-
           farmworkers move on to different jobs with
           different employers, that a five-day period
           before a worker is trained in pesticide matters
           is just simply too long. The third is that the
           retraining  period should be shorter than the
           five-year period so that we can be sure that
           workers are being retrained,  that workers
           know what their rights are under this law and
           that compliance with the Worker Protection
           Standard be closely monitored.

              Worker; I believe we here in the colonias
           are more exposed to the chemicals due to the
           planes  that go by, and they don't care  if the
 wind is strong or if there is no wind. We have
 been affected some five or six times right here
 in our house. Once the plane flew over and I
 think it opened the valve and we were vety
 sick. And the field is very close, then they
 don't tell us that they are going to spray; they
 don't take us into account for anything. So I
 think this needs to change because they are
 killing us little by little.  One of the little ones,
 when cotton season starts, always sweats and
 gets a bad rash on  the  face with  lots  of
 pimples.  The doctor says it's a skin disease,
: but he does not say it's the chemicals that are
 already on his  skin.   We -want you to do
 something about that too.  The school is vety
 close by, Kelly school, so a lot of children are
 being affected by the chemicals.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: Yes. I think these
 are two very important problems.   One is
 what we call drift from the spray, from the
 airplane, which the EPA is working very hard
 on right now. We are gathering data on drift
 and I would say for some of the pesticides, we
 are beginning to get a handle on them for the
 first time.  This is not a problem that we have
 solved.   And the second issue, which is
 related, of the skin rashes, I would say that it
 is also a very important problem and one that
 we're seeing as the old chemicals go through
 reregistration, they are brought up to date, we
 are starting to see that a lot of them have
 these effects on the skin. They are irritating,
 they can cause rashes, and that is changing the
 way that we are regulating them.  I know that
 this has been a major problem, not only from
 the drift, but also for the farmworkers that
106  T*xas

many of these chemicals have caused skin

   Raymond Gill: On that point I would like
to say that I'm litigating a case in district court
on behalf of Maria and Maribel—Maribel is the
young  woman  holding  the  baby.   The
pesticide is called Guthion  2L, highly toxic
and the symptoms are shortness of breath or
rashes, vomiting, headaches, very generalized
symptoms, very difficult to pinpoint to  a
    Dr. Lynn  Goldman:
Did  you  say
    Raymond Gill:  Guthion 2L. The active
ingredient is  azinphos-methyl; very  highly

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: One we know well.

    Raymond Gill: Yes.  Sprayed a lot here in
this field that Maria said. We are surrounded,
by the way, by agricultural fields.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: Is the drift occuring
from applications on the ground or just when
they fly over?

    Raymond Gill: This particular incident—or
actually, it would be these incidents—were
from  an airplane. And  I would just say this:
Maria  called  the   Texas Department  of
Agriculture that same morning. Texas Dept.
of Agriculture did the  right thing, sent an
investigator, got swab samples and found out,
sure enough, that this azinphos-methyl from
this particular pesticide was sprayed by that
plane on that day.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman:  Did you find any
from a ground application at all?

   Juanita Cox:  No tractors. All applications
are done by airplane.

   Worker:  I  think they are fooling the
people with these signs. They put them up
for four or five days and they don't take them
down.  And where they ought to put them—
where people should not enter—they don't put

   Juanita Cox:  Where do they put the signs?

   Worker: At the fields. They leave them
there for many days.

   Juanita Cox:  Oh, OK.

   Worker:  There  is another  problem.
When  the people put the water in the field,
they put farm chemicals and pesticides but the
foremen they don't give protection for those
people. They are working in the  fields and
not even covered.  They are very dangerous
pesticides, because I used to pass by and I see
the cans and they say .they are dangerous, and
those  people,  I  think they need to  be
protected too, because they are working in the
fields all day, all night, sometimes all day, all
night  and  -working  with  these  kinds  of
pesticides or chemicals and it's very hard.

   Juanita Cox:  They were irrigating?
                                                                          Texas  107

              Worker:  All the time it happens here on
           these roads and they have the tanks and the
           containers of the pesticides they put in the
           water itself.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman: The problem with
           what we call chemigation or irrigation with
           chemicals that you saw, when was that?

              Worker:  About a week ago. I think the
           tanks are still there on the side of the road.

              Juanita Cox:  On Highway 107, which is
           north  of  Edinburg,  some   farmworkers
           saw...there was a  road in between  some
           farmworkers who  were tying beets and a
           tractor that was spraying,  and the  only
           distance between them was this road that
           divided the two of them and the tractor was
           spraying and the people were tying beets right
           next to it.  And then she went to  ask him
           where was his mask since he was applying this
           chemical, and he said the boss  didn't want to
           give him any and if he didn't want to work to
           just leave.

              Worker:   We stopped the people  who
           were working there and we sent them to some
           other place to work, because if you were there
           you could get a headache right away because
           that chemical they were throwing there was
           very strong.  And we told the men who were
           working with them to move  the people from
           there because it was very dangerous, and they
           had been there all morning long and they
           didn't take them out until we told them.
    Worker:  ...and that happened in several
.'different places.  They were working with
 rashes on their hands but they kept working

    Juanita Cox:  How many of you have
 received training on worker protection? You
 work a lot of onion, right?  And you too,
 Dolores?   And you, Antonia, you  haven't

    Worker: I always worked watermelon and
 peppers, but then one  time I got sick. They
 put something on there and we got into the
 pepper field and we  got wet, and we had to
 harvest the peppers, but they never told us
 there  was poison,  they  never  explained
 anything.  Since we have the need to work in
 the fields,  because  that's  how we make a
 living, and ever since I've been working here,
 since I got my papers, I know many crew
 leaders  from the  Valley, but none of them
 explained anything to me about any dangers in
 the fields.

    Juanita Cox:  Have you been trained...all
 the rules about pesticides?

    Worker: No,  never.

    Worker:  No, they don't give  us training.
 They just poison  and then, "Hey, just get in
 there." And if you get a rash...well, there's no
 warning or anything.

    Juanita Cox:  This last onion  season, did
 they give you some sheets?
108  Texas

   Worker: Yes, they showed us a movie.

   Juanita Cox: Did they show you a video at
the shed or in the field?

   Worker: At the packing shed.

   Raymond Gill: In English or Spanish?

   Worker: In Spanish.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: Yes, it was probably
made here, actually. Was there an opportunity
to ask questions after the video?

   Worker:   When they handed  out the
sheets last year they didn't show it, but this
time they showed the video.

   Juanita Cox: But now that they showed
you  the  video,  did they  give  you  the
opportunity, was there someone there  that
you could ask questions to?

   Worker: No, I don't think so.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: It is OK to use the
video, it's OK to use, you know, posters and
hand-outs, but one  of the requirements for
the training is that there is an opportunity to
ask questions in your language. If you  only
speak  Spanish,  you should  be given  the
opportunity to ask the questions in Spanish if
you have any questions after the training.

   Worker:   Last year when  they  were
handing out sheets, there was someone there
asking if we had any questions.
    Raymond Gill: You might ask if any of
the workers have ever received any of the
protective equipment.

    Workers (2 or 3): I only work onions and
we just use gloves.   They don't give  you
anything.  Up north, yes, but not here in the

    Worker. In the warehouses they are more
exposed, because they put chemicals and they
don't give you the masks.

    Worker:   My husband works  at  the
warehouse and several times he came home
gasping for breath  because they had used
chemicals there.

    Juanita Cox: And what products do they
have there?

    Worker:    Well   they  run   onions,

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: With pesticides the
problem is that kind of a problem can  also
result from other things too,  like the dust that
can exist inside of a packing shed. If you have
lung disease  like asthma or chronic lung
disease, the dust  can be a very hazardous
He's  always  washing the
    Juanita Cox:  And what  does  he wash
them with?
                                                                          Texas  109

              Worker: With ammonia.

              Juanita Cox: Ammonia is very strong too,
           and it can affect you when you're cleaning.
           Anything else?  Any other comments  or
           questions. They don't come here every day
           from so far. How many of you have received
           the crop  sheets when you go to work? The
           ones with the picture of the vegetable on it?

              Workers;  Yes, I received a celery crop
           sheet.   Sometimes they hand it out but
           without the boss' name on it.

              Juanita Cox: She was harvesting onions
           and they were spraying with a tractor right
           next to the field where she was working and
           she called the crew leader.  But the crew leader
           said that  that was a different owner so there
           was nothing they could do. So they had to
           continue  to spray because they didn't belong
           to the same  farmer  for  whom  she was
           harvesting onions, so they just had to continue
           to spray.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman;  Two points: One,
           the Worker Protection Standard does not
           differentiate between the owners of the crops.
           In other  words, just because it belongs to a
           different  owner, it doesn't mean it was legal
           for you to have been there. So you did the
           right thing asking to leave. That's something
           I think maybe we might want to talk to you
           about when we break, because that was not a
           correct interpretation of the standard.

              Worker. He said it was OK because it was
           by tractor, it didn't drift.
    Dr.  Lynn  Goldman:   That is also
mistaken. One more thing before we leave.
I think there is a question about the protective
equipment. Because the question about the
protective  equipment came  up, I think  it
might be important to explain when you need
it and when you don't need it.

    Jose Sanchez: The question was asked
about when you should  be given protective
equipment after a pesticide has  been applied
to a field.  You should be given protective
equipment when you are going to work
directly with  the chemicals,  when you are
making an application or during that period of
time when you must wait, which is restricted.
As  Juanita mentioned, each pesticide has a
certain period of time you must wait before
returning without protective equipment. So
during those  24 hours or 12  hours  or 48
hours, if you're going to enter the field during
that time, then you must be provided the
protective equipment. But if you are going to
work in that field after those 12 or 24 hours,
depending on  the  chemical,  then  the
protective  equipment won't   be  provided
because there  is no more danger of being
    But it is important that, when you work in
the  fields, especially  if  there  have been
applications, to use long-sleeved shirts, pants,
closed  shoes (not huaraches), gloves if you
can, to be safer.   Not  only  will you be
protecting yourselves from the chemicals, but
also from the sun. Because if you go out there
wearing a T-shirt and shorts, then not just the
sun, but depending on the person, if you are
allergic to something, it will affect you too. So
110  Texas

it is important for you to be aware that not
every day, or each time that you are going to
work in the fields, will you be given protective
equipment.  But if you have any doubts, ask.
You also have the right to be informed about
the applications, so ask the boss, because they
should have a list of all the pesticides that have
been  applied.  And if anyone  ever has a
complaint, they have the right to submit a
complaint to  the Agriculture Department.
Just call us and we'll do everything we can.  As
the gentleman said...the situation with the
lady...Maria G6mez...they called us, we went,
took our samples, made our report and it was
found  that there was indeed a chemical drift.
So that if things are to change, you must take
charge also, and  if you  have a  complaint,
report it.

    Raymond Gill: I would say one thing in a
general way: The employment  dynamic in
agriculture down here, because it's seasonal,
because  it's occasional and  because  it's so
difficult to get, farmworkers have to stomach
a lot of injustice, a lot of discrimination and a
lot of abuse in this area—in the area of wages,
certainly, and working conditions—there are a
number  of these injustices  because  of the
dynamic that is being created by the scarcity
of work and the supply of farmworkers. So
the backdrop to this conversation and to the
conversation you'll have is that dynamic which
permeates the lives  of farmworkers and is
probably a message you'll hear wherever you
go, over and over, if not spoken directly, at
least certainly in the background. And it's that
dynamic which needs to be addressed in all its
    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  OK, I am aware that
we have two more meetings. Thank you so
much. I know your time is important to you.
Thank you.
Meeting in San Juan, Texas

   Juanita Cox:  [Beginning of tape missing]
...if  there are questions or comments  and
then when the others arrive we can do the
introductions of all the people here, who they
are, where they come from and what kind of
information...what they are here for.  We can
do the  introductions when  more people
arrive, but for now, just to begin, I want to
greet you and thank you for letting us meet in
your house and ask you questions about field
work—whether they have given you the crop
sheets or if you've watched the video or you
have been trained by the companies and the
crew leaders here or up north (because they
are from the federal programs, so it applies
here and when  you go elsewhere to work
also).  You were telling us  about the onions.
Could you explain this to us? What is your

    Worker: Gloria [Inaudible; several people
talking at once.  One man asks her to show
them a rash on her arm]...

    Juanita Cox and Dr. Lynn Goldman: Do
you know the pesticide that was applied?

       )rker:  No, they didn't tell us.
                                                                          Texas  111

               Juanita Cox;  Did they give you a sheet
           with the name written on it?

               Worker: No, nothing.

               Juanita Cox: Neither the crew leader nor
           the employer?

               Worker;   No, no one.  No sheet or
           anything. We just went there and he just said
           to go in there and start to work.

               Dr. Lynn Goldman: You know, they're
           supposed to also post  the  name  of the
           pesticides in a central location...

              Juanita Cox:  Did you see at a central
           location at the farm a sheet that talks about
           the poisons?

              Worker; [Inaudible]

              Juanita Cox [To Dr. Goldman]: Somtimes
           they put them  on the bathrooms, but this
           time they didn't have it. (To worker]: Where
           was the field?

              Worker: The field was by Montecristo
           Road north of Edinburg and also at a field by
           the river.

              Juanita Cox:  Have you always worked in
           the fields?

              Worker:  Yes.
    Worker:  I think since '81.  I've always
 gone out to work, but nothing like this had
 happened like now.

    Juanita Cox: Have you been trained about
 the pesticides?

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:   Did you  see a

    Worker:  No... [Inaudible; multiple voices]

   Juanita Cox:  Come in.  Good afternoon.
 Have a seat.  How have you been? Good...
 [Arranging seating  for the  new arrivals^
 conversation, laughter]  Is there someone else
who has worked in the fields like  this lady?
Anyone else?

   Workers: [Inaudible]

   Juanita Cox: You? Where?

   Worker:  My oldest son, Sergio, is allergic
to cucumbers, but only to cucumbers.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: Did you say your
daughter goes with you?

   Worker:  Who, me?
   Dr. Lynn Goldman:  Uh-um.  How old is
              Juanita Cox:  How many years have you
           been working in the fields?
     Worker:  I'm sixteen.
112  Texas

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: You're sixteen. Did
you also suffer skin rashes?

   Worker: No, I didn't.

   Juanita Cox: OK. Anyone else? Those of
you who work in the fields, when you work
here or up north, do you get those sheets?

   Worker: Up north yes, but not here.

   Juanita Cox: What crops? In which state?

   Worker: [Inaudible; noise of chairs being
moved around]

   Juanita Cox  [To Dr- Lynn Goldman]:
....and the  cucumber and they did get their
crop sheets. [To workers]: Do they give you
some other kind of training?

   Worker: Just those papers for us to read.
Here at the onion harvest they showed us the

   Randy Rivera: After the training, did they
give  you the card?

   Worker: A blue one? Yes.

   Randy Rivera: Here or up north?

   Juanita Cox: Here in Edinburg they gave
him  a blue card, and in Plainview.

   Juanita Cox:  While they work they play a
video in the field so that they can hear about
the pesticides.
    Worker: Not here in the Valley.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  There was someone
at our meeting last night, he said that he does
that.  In fact, it might have been that same
person—cucumbers,  kind   of   a  pickling
warehouse... [Inaudible; multiple voices]

    Juanita Cox: Here in Espiga do they give
you gloves?

    Worker: Not here. In Plainview.

    Worker: Here if you ask for something to
protect yourself, what they tell you is, "If you
want to work, go ahead.  If not, there's a lot
of other people who will." That's their word
here in the Valley.

    Randy Rivera: And -who tells you that?

    Worker: The labor contractors.

    Juanita Cox:  Since 1993, the program
requirements kicked in.   The  agency she
represents in Washington,  D.C. started this
regulation that protects  the  agricultural
•worker, which says they must give you your
training, your crop sheets, the videos so you
can watch, the gloves or face masks and things
like that,  since '93.  So what  she wants to
know   and  the  investigation  they  are
conducting is to see that the program is being
properly implemented, or if not and changes
are needed. That's what they are interested in
hearing from you who work in the fields.  If it
is working out better than before "93 or if it is
the same, or if the  contractors or farmers
                                                                           Texas  113

           need to pay more attention that colonias are
           not sprayed with planes when the wind is
           blowing strong. Have you had any experiences
           of this kind?

              Worker:  The planes are  still spraying

              Juanita Cox:   They are  still spraying
           people? Recently?

              Worker; Last week.  During onion harvest
           in Edinburg, a plane was spraying where we
           were working. There is a field of grapefruit or
           oranges on this side and they spray it and
           there you are working.

              Juanita Cox; Did you smell anything?

              Workers:    Yes.    [Inaudible; multiple

              Juanita Cox   [To  Dr. Lynn Goldman]:
           She says you don't have to go to the fields.
           The fields are right here and you can smell it
           in the house when they spray out there, the
           field that's right next to the canal.

              Worker; Is there anything they can do to
           stop the planes from spraying?  They never
           stop when we're working there.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman:  That is not supposed
           to happen.

              Juanita Cox:  Was it in the  melon or
           grapefruit fields?
    Worker:  In  the  melon and grapefruit
fields they've done it.
    Juanita  Cox:
Let  her give you  an
    Dr. Lynn Goldman: And then I'll turn to
the Department of Agriculture people to add
in.  But I think it's important to understand
that  even  before  we  had  the  Worker
Protection Standard, it has not been legal to
spray people from an airplane.  That is not
legal.  It's not legal to spray workers from an
airplane and if that is happening it is a misuse
and it should be reported.

    Jose Sanchez: What I want to tell you is
when something  happens like the  situation
you're explaining during an application, with
an airplane, and you're working in a field that
is close to where the application is taking
place, and you think or know that you have
been   exposed  because  the applicator  is
breaking the law,  then you have the right to
file  a  complaint  with  Department  of
Agriculture. These are violations not only of
the worker protection program but of other
federal laws regarding the use of the pesticides
in a way that is contrary to the label.  You can
iCall  our  office.   Let me  give you  the
number-it's 787-8866.
    The most important thing  to  do is, if
something happens and you get exposed, what
you should do is get in touch with us as soon
as possible because we have a certain number
of steps we need to take when  initiating an
investigation and something that is very
important is taking samples.  We have to take
114  Texas

samples of your clothing, for example, take
your shirt as a sample so we can analyze it and
find out if the pesticide really made contact
with you. We also take soil samples, the crop
where the application took place, etc. So we
take those samples and document everything
to make a report.  So if the samples tests
positive that they have the pesticide and
everything supports  the  claim,  then  the
department  takes  action and  fines them,
suspends  the license, etc.   But the most
important thing is to please call us at  the
office.  Because in the past we have been
called a year after, two months  after or two
weeks after and so it gets more  complicated
and   it  is  more difficult  to document
everything,  take  samples,   etc.   Because
sometimes we  need  to know  as  soon as
possible in order  to  take the  information
about what happened.  Because sometimes
you  wait six  months or six  weeks and you
forget who the labor contractor was, exactly
where you were harvesting.
   So if s important to call us at the office as
soon as possible. And I want to  make it very
clear that we will not always find the guilty
party. Sometimes you can smell  the pesticide
stink, but sometimes we can't  do  anything
about it. If you believe you are  in danger of
being exposed, the most important thing is to
get away from that field. You also  need to
take precautions and watch out for yourselves.
Because if you get sick, your whole family will
suffer.  So  sometimes  it is very difficult,
because the workers, when I give the courses,
the training, they say, "I have  to work and if I
complain maybe they'll fire  me," right?  So,
yes,  you are in a difficult position.  So you
have to make that decision to call us or allow
things to remain the same.

   Workers: [Inaudible]

   Juanita Cox:  She didn't report it. You
have to report it as soon as possible. When it
happens, report it.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: It is also important
if you become ill or get a skin rash, you should
see a doctor. It is very important.  And then
the doctor will make some records. And it is
just as helpful as  having  the analysis  of the
chemical to have the doctor's records of what
he saw. You can also get treatment and it is
possible to get some treatment...I'm going to
actually take a look at that one when the
meeting is over; I'm a doctor myself.

   Jose Sanchez: What you should do also is,
if you have been exposed to a pesticide, as Dr.
Goldman said, you need to go to the doctor
and you need to tell the doctor that you have
been exposed or you believe you have been
exposed to a pesticide.  Then the doctor will
take the necessary steps to do all the analyses
to  document if  you were exposed to a
pesticide.  That will help you a lot and will
help us  a  lot  in our  complaint  report

   Juanita Cox:  I think they recognize they
should go to the doctor but....

   Jose Sanchez:  The money... [Inaudible;
multiple voices]
                                                                          Texas  115

              Juanita Cox: They won't take you in the
           emergency room unless you have a hundred
           dollars with you.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman: I'd like to get back to
           the standard, the Worker Protection Standard
           and...one  of the things we're interested in
           hearing   is  whether   the   fundamental
           requirements of the standard are being carried
           out.  Requirements such as the training that
           must be given, the requirement for the re-
           entry interval after the pesticide is applied—
           there's a time when you're not supposed to go
           in the field—and the requirement for providing
           decontamination facilities.  For example, I
           would be curious about the woman who had
           the skin rash, when she realized that she had
           the pesticide on the skin, was there a place
           where she  could wash it off...the availability of
           water,   soap   and  towels  to   decontam-
           inate—and can you go to the doctor, can you
           get help if you do have an exposure?

              Worker: In a field where I was working
           once, the  water they gave you was from the
           canal and  that water is not going to get the
           stuff off because it's going to put more on

              Randy Rivera: Is that the same field where
           this lady was -working, where she got hurt?

              Juanita Cox: Where  you  were working,
           was there  water for rinsing...did you go and
           rinse yourself there?

              Worker: No, I didn't rinse myself.  I just
           went home.
    Randy Rivera: Was it water from the canal
or some other kind?

    Worker: I don't know which kind it was.
When you get there the water is already there,
so you don't know where it came from.

    Juanita  Cox:  Did you tell the contractor
about it?

    Worker: No, no, because he's never there.
He's around checking other fields.

    Juanita  Cox:  Do  you think contractors
bring water  to rinse with in case of a pesticide

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  I should say it's
important  for people to understand that if
there is an accident and the pesticide is on the
skin, to wash it off right away.  It's very
important;  the sooner you wash it, the better.

    Jose Sanchez: And if you have a pesticide
on your skin, even washing off with the canal
water is better than not washing at  all.  It's
better than  waiting four hours before you get
home.  If it's canal water, wash yourself if you
know  you've been  exposed,   you   feel it
itching...it's better to wash it off.  If you wait,
it could affect you more...if you don't wash it

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: Well, and the other
thing that is important is that it is your right to
wash it off...and you don't have to go to youi:
boss or your crew leader to ask for permission
because it  is your right  under  the  Worker
116  Texas

Protection Standard to wash it off.  [Taping
suspended while tape was changed]

   Juanita Cox: Have you seen the signs?

   Worker:  In Plainview they put them up.
But not here.

   Jose Sanchez: To clarify something... not
all pesticides require the field to be posted.
What is required is that you be informed
about the application.  Now many times, as
this gentleman said, the danger time is up and
that's why the sign is  not there.  But that is
why you need to get the training, so that all
this can be explained  to you. You have the
right to know,  as Juanita and Dr. Goldman
said, so  if you're not getting the information,
it is important for you to ask for it, and if it is
denied to you then you call us.  Call us if an
employer is not giving you the information or
the  training, or what we  call  a decon-
tamination center, which is soap water and
towels.  If they don't have  that "where the
bathrooms are, then that's what we need to

   Worker:  I  want to tell you something.
When we've been working in the fields and
I've seen people spraying, I have not seen a
single sign, not  a single sign. And yet we've
seen around the cane fields the signs telling
you they are going to  burn the cane, but for
the other stuff,  no.  And we've been all over
the Valley, Montecristo,  Highway 107...Fve
never seen a sign anywhere.
    Worker:    Which  packing sheds  are
supposed to give us the training?

     Jose Sanchez. Juanita Cox:   All  the
packing sheds, all the fields where they use
agricultural pesticides.  Wherever there is
agricultural product, you have the right to get
trained and watch the video.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  If they don't use the
pesticides, then they don't have to.

    Worker:  But what  I'm saying to you is
I've never been trained anywhere.

    Jose Sanchez: But you said you already had
the training... [Noise, interruptions]

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: Now...it is important
that the training...they don't have to use the
video to give the training. They can give it by
speaking. They can give it by using the poster,
they can  give  it with  the video.  What's
important for the training is that they give you
the information, one, and two, that they give
you the opportunity to ask questions in your
language afterwards. But it's up to the farmer
if they use the video or how they...or if it's just

    Worker:   So  when I  go in for  the
cucumber or onion harvest,  they need to give
me the sheet?

    Juanita Cox, Jose Sanchez: Yes, correct.
[Noise; multiple voices]
                                                                           Texas   117

              Worker: They don't give them to you if
           you don't ask for them.

              Juanita Cox;   So in all your years of
           working here in the Valley you haven't seen a
           sign that says you cannot enter a field?

              Worker. Well, no, I haven't. Over there
           they do, over there where we go.

              Juanita Cox: The sign says "danger" and
           has a face and a hand and says "do not enter."
           [Multiple voices, laughter]  Please, let's pay
           attention. This is serious.  So, you have not
           seen this sign?  No? It's a sign-she's  the one
           who is asking—she comes from the  EPA to
           see these people here and she's talking about
           field work and if you've seen a sign with a
           hand that says "do not enter" because there is
           a poisoning ha2ard.  She's asking if you've
           seen it in the fields.

              Worker: In some fields.

              Juanita Cox: Here, not up north.

              Worker: Here and up north.

              Juanita Cox: Which fields have you seen
           these at?

              Worker: [Inaudible] ...when they have just
           sprayed the pesticides is when they put them
           up.  When you can go in, they  take them.

              Worker; Over there where we  go, they
           use it a lot; in Bay City.
   Juanita Cox: Have you received, here or
up north, the training regarding your rights
about pesticides, the crop sheet, the video?
Have you seen these?

   Worker:  Yes, last year this lady took us
some papers and read them to us. About our
'rights and how to protect ourselves.

    (More people arrive]

   Juanita Cox: Good afternoon.  Sit over
here..there's a chair here. You folks who just
got here..she's asking about the pesticides in
the fields and if you've seen this sign that tells
you not to enter.

    Worker:  Yes, yes.

   Juanita Cox: In what crops.

    Worker:  Beets, but not here.  [Noise,
multiple voices]

   Juanita Cox: Please let's listen. One at a
time. Welcome to  those who just got here.
She's Dr. Lynn Goldman and this is the group
that came with her from Washington.  They
are observing to see if some new regulations
are being carried out for the protection of the
agricultural worker...everything having to do
with pesticides—the training, washing facilities
at the field, water soap and towels to wash
your skin.

    Worker: We were at the onion fields, and
they bring soap and water and towels.  [Noise,
multiple voices]
118  Texas

   Juanita Cox: Anything else related to stuff
from up  north is all right because  this is
federal so if you want to say something about
Michigan  and Minnesota and those  other
states, it's  OK.

   Worker:  Over there  there's  no water.
Each  one  brings  his  own.    And  the
bathroom....you   find  a   place  to  hide.
Sometimes there are no canals or anything.

   Juanita Cox: Even though she's federal, if
you could please talk mainly about here, about
the Valley and the bosses you work for in the
Valley....about the training...do they warn you
when there's poison?  Do they give you water
to wash with, that kind of thing?

   Worker: There's an old man who comes
to warn us and take us  out of the cabbage
fields when they are going to spray  pesticides.

   Juanita Cox:  That's the way it  should be.
They should take you out of the fields when
they spray and then wait several hours before
going back in,  when the  pesticide is gone.
Anything else?

   Worker:  This is good, to  give us a
reminder.  We have a phone number to call if
we see something so they can come  and check
things out.

   Juanita Cox:  They are from Washington,
but he is from Texas, from the Department of
Agriculture, and they are the ones you need to
report any incidents to, if a plane is spraying
or a tractor is spraying too close to you or if
they send you in to work right after putting
poison in the field or if they didn't give you
training. That's the information they need to
know. Because this law requires that you have
all these things for your protection.  When
they don't do  what they're supposed to is
when you should report them.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: We appreciate that
you have  come here to talk to us and share
with us your experience. That is so important
to us in understanding whether the standard is
working and what we need to do further to do
a better job to protect you.

    Juanita Cox: I did  not mention it at the
start, but  they had a hearing in McAllen last
night where everything was recorded and is
part of the official record.  If you'll notice, he
is recording too because, even though this is
not an official  meeting, the comments that
you give us will  be part of this official record
they are taking  to have proof they talked to
farmworkers who work in the fields and you
are telling them what the  conditions are in

    Jose Sanchez And another thing you can
do  is write a letter....suggestions, comments,
problems  you  have  found in  the field
regarding pesticides, and you can send it to—I
don't know if Juanita has made copies of the
sheets where you can write your comments,
suggestions, etc.-i-and  send them  to Dr.
Goldman's office so that they can have your
written comments, since you were not able to
attend the meeting yesterday.  This will help
                                                                          Texas  119

           you a lot, since your voice and comments are
           being heard.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman:  I also want to give
           my appreciation to the United Farm Workers
           for helping to organize this and for all their
           hard work in bringing people together and
           helping us communicate. And to the Texas
           Department of Agriculture also for helping us
           here today, thank you very much.

              Juanita Cox:  It's very important for you
           to remember the telephone number he gave
           you...787-8866.  Keep  it in mind so that if
           something happens, don't wait, call them right
           away.  You don't have  to give them your

              Worker:  What area do you cover?

              Jose Sanchez: The whole Valley.

              Worker;  Falfurrias  too?

              Jose Sanchez:  Yes, all the way up to
           Corpus Christi.  Even if it's in San Antonio,
           I'll call the San Antonio office for you. One
           more comment. Juanita's office has told me
           that the first Friday of every month they have
           a training.   If you cannot make it to that
           training,  it's  important  that  you  call  me
           because I can train you too. We don't have to
           wait until somebody comes asking you if
           you've been trained after working there for six
           months.  If you are going  to work in  the
           fields, you need the training. So if you can't
           go to Juanita's trainings, call me. I can come
           to your houses here and meet with you or you
can go  by our  office  where we have air
conditioning and all the equipment, projector,
videos,  books.    And  I can  answer any
questions you might have and if I can't give
you an answer, we can call the TDA office in
Austin or the EPA. It's very important. The
Department of Agriculture is here to help you
too and listen to you.  You've told us that
some  of you have not received the training
and we're going to try to get that done so that
you can know your rights and what needs to
be done in the field.

    Randy Rivera:  If for some  reason you
cannot reach Mr. Sanchez here in San Juan,
you can reach me at the Austin office.
120  Texas

Written Comments
          Wayne Labar
          Cotton and Grain Producers of the Lower Rio Grande Valley

          Maria Idalia Salinas

          Pat Kornegay
          Texas Agricultural Aviation Association

          Joyce Obst
          Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Agri Women

          Emilie A. Sebesta
          Vikki M. Flores
          Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.
                                                                            Texas  121

          TELEPHONE 3 1O 42B-6O77  •  134 E. VAN BUREN, SUITE 3D4  •   HARLINBEN, TEXAS 7B5SO
From the desk of Wayne Labar, Executive Director.

Our Association is one of the 9 Cotton Producer Associations in Texas

that  makes up the Texas Cotton  Producers Association.  The cotton

industry in Texas is the largest row-crop industry in Texas agriculture.

Texas  plants approximately 6 million acres of cotton  annually which

represents 1/3 of aii the cotton planted in the United States.  This brief

statement regarding the Worker Protection Standards is representative

of the entire Texas cotton industry.

The Worker Protection Standard developed by EPA has come a long way

in upgrading  the  regulations  to protect agricultural workers  and

pesticide  handlers who   are  occupationally  exposed to pesticides.

Exposure reduction measures include making sure workers are aware of

treated areas, restricting  re-entry  into those areas, providing  personal

protective equipment, providing training to  handlers and workers,  and

making sure pesticide labels and other information is readily available.

However, all the responsibility and accountability under WPS rests on the

employer. There comes a point in time that the employee has to take

responsibility for his own actions. Under the standard as written at

present, there is little,  or no, accountability placed on the worker to

implement  what  he has learned from  training.  There is also no

responsibility placed on the worker  to  properly  use  the   personal

protective equipment required to be supplied for him.

Agricultural employers generally do not have any problems with specific

directions stated on pesticide labels. However, the generic provisions of

many labels that simply state the producerwill comply with 40 CFR part

170 is confusing and contradictory. This small part of the code Federal

Regulations is a huge book some 21/2 inches thick.  A generic, one

sentence provision on  a label places on  a producer's shoulders the

responsibility of complying with thousands and thousands of pages of

regulation.  Even EPA's "How to Comply Manual"  is contradictory and

confusing.  The label provisions should be specific to the task in hand

for that particular pesticide and not so all encompassing.

            Worker Protection Standard Public Meeting
                         MeAllen, Texas
                          April  24,  1996
                                   AFFIDAVIT OF MARIA
                                   IDALIA SALINAS
     BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
MARIA IDALIA  SALINAS,  who,  being by me here  and  now duly sworn,
upon her oath deposes and says:

     1.   My name is MARIA  IDALIA SALINAS,  and I  reside  at 2021
Chicago (Rear), McAllen,  Texas, which is located in Hidalgo County,
Texas.   I  am over the  age of  eighteen years,  and I am fully
competent to  testify to the  facts contained  in  this affidavit.
Unless otherwise stated, the facts stated below are based upon my
own personal knowledge.

     2.   On November 3,  1995,  I was employed,  through a farm labor
contractor, by a large packing shed in Mission, Texas.

     3.   As  of November 3,  1995, I had  been working for this
employer for  approximately  three  months  yet I had never received
any training about how to protect myself from pesticides.    I was
never given copies of any crop sheets.

     4.  On November 3,  1995, I was picking bell peppers,  which I
noticed were covered with white dust.  I was  wearing gloves, a long
sleeve shirt,  long pants, a hat and a scarf that covered  my head
and neck.   My employer did  not provide this protective clothing,
nor did he  advise me to  wear  it.   I wore this to protect  myself.
Even with this  protective clothing,  my  face started burning.   At
the end of the day we went home,  I showered  but my face got worse.

     5.  The next morning, November 4, 1995,  I  reported to work and
I worked until lunch but I had to go home because my condition got
worse.  The burning and itching was unbearable.  The crewleader was
not there that day so I  only told one of the other workers.

     6.  Neither the packing shed or the crewleader would send me
to a doctor so I went on  my  own to a doctor in  Mexico.  This doctor
told me I had been poisoned by pesticides.

     7.   Another woman who was under a  different crewleader was
also poisoned and that crewleader sent her to a doctor.

     8.  During the whole time I was working for this packing shed
and crewleader,  nobody ever told us when a field was sprayed or

what it had been sprayed with.

     9.  Also, while there was water available for washing, it was
dirty and there  was no soap.

     Further  affiant sayeth not.
                                    MARIA  IDALIA SALINAS

SWORN TO and  subscribed before me on April  24,  1996.
My commission expires:
                    CERTIFICATE OF T
                                                 Malay Public
                                                STATE OFTBMS
                                             My Coiran. Exp. Nov. 5,1898
     I,  the undersigned,  affirm that the foregoing AFFIDAVIT was
accurately  translated into Spanish and was read aloud in Spanish by
me to MARIA IDALIA SALINAS, before  she  signed it.
                                    Margarita M.  FlorSss

 '•/  /\  /\   /\     /
 *  ******    i
                                   Texas Agricultural Aviation Association
                                    Box 684246 Austin, Texas 78768-4351  (512)478-3241  Fax (512)476-7297

 Pit Komtgiy, President
 Sin Btnito

 Bob Oitrett, Vice Pre»Idem
Oiylcn Sumpi, Sacratiry

Rmdy H«i», Trauurar

Chcli StMdi, Executive Director

District I

M«tt Rich, Vice Praaident
 Bltyn* Rowiind

 DitUlot It

 Bitty AUtnhoKcr, Vlca Prctldtnt
 Lowe* HIcki


 District III

 Jim Cottinohtm, Vlca Projldcm
 Muodiy :

Dtnny Howluvt

District IV

Rindy Mwptwoe, Vieo ProKent

ROOM Horin

      , Otlegila

Rick H«dcMl!«, Alornita

Allied Industry

Diva Hirndon, Director

Aminfa Bull, Altcinita
Advisory Board

Rck Hirdcxlla

Rob Putt
He una

Ed States
                            April 24, 1996
                           Environmental Protection Agency
                           Washington, D.C.
                           To Whom it may concern:

                              The following comments dealing with aerial application industry concerns with
                           the Worker Protection Standard are offered for your consideration. Our interest is
                           in helping to develop the Worker Protection Standard into an effective, realistic, and
                           enforceable statute that accomplishes the goal of protecting agricultural workers
                           from restricted use pesticides.

                             The Texas Agricultural Aviation Association can be contacted at our Austin
                           office for additional information concering these issues.  We appreciate the
                           opportunity to express our views and concerns to the agency.
                                                         'at Kornegaj

       My name is Pat Kornegay and I am the president of the Texas Agricultural
Aviation Association;, a statewide association of about 300 professional aerial applicators
and allied industry supporters.  For over twenty years I have worked as an agricultural
pilot and as the owner of commercial aerial application business that applies crop
protection chemicals to an average of two hundred thousand acres of cropland annually.
I am also speaking on behalf of the National Agricultural Aviation Association, which
represents the aerial application industry's interests in Washington, D.C.. I would like to
address some issues of concern to commercial aerial applicators involving Worker
Protection  Standards.

       The first concerns section 170.224, which addresses requirements for notification
by commercial applicators to agricultural employers of timing of pesticide applications.
We recognize the importance of this information to establish posting and reentry periods
for agricultural workers, however the definitions and requirements contained in WPS for
achieving this are somewhat vague and the ultimate responsibility for establishing
communication between pesticide handlers and agricultural employers is unclear.  There
are several methods of communication deemed acceptable under the statute such as direct
telephone contact, answering machine messages, faxes, etc. The end result will be
difficulty on the part of the enforcing agency to verify whether of not contact was made
and therefore where responsibility rests in an enforcement action. Our suggestion is that
the responsibility for providing information involving a pesticide application remain with
the pesticide handler, but that responsibility for initiating the communication to obtain that
knowledge be with the agricultural employer.  Since the agricultural employer initiates the
chain of events that result in a  pesticide application and a vast majority of commercial
pesticide applicators operate .out of a central location at which all scheduling is initiated
and all records are kept, it would be more appropriate that the agricultural employer bear
the responsibility of obtaining this information. The fact that most agricultural employers,
by the nature of their business  spend most of their time in the field adds to the problem of
the commercial applicator establishing verifiable communication.  As the agricultural
employer bears the responsibility of posting and conveying re-entry information to field.
workers, this should be consistent with that process and not be an additional burden. The
pesticide handler/commercial applicator would be responsible for providing accurate
timing information to the agricultural employer upon his request.

        The other area of concern for commercial applicators, aerial applicators in
particular,  is the use of personal protective equipment. It is my understanding that
through contacts between EPA and representatives of the National Agricultural Aviation
Association in Washington, EPA has indicated a certain amount of flexibility concerning
the use of PPE by agricultural pilots. The rule still stands that pilots must carry a
complete PPE package (overalls, boots, gloves, hat, respirator, faceshield, water bottle) in
the aircraft, and use gloves when entering and exiting the aircraft. The size and shape of
 an .agricultural aircraft cockpit preclude a pilot being able to put this equipment on prior to
 exiting the aircraft and the use of gloves when entering and exiting the aircraft would
 simply introduce possibly contaminated pesticide handling gloves into the clean and sealed
 environment that constitutes an aircraft cockpit.  The use of impermeable protective

coveralls in the high heat environment normally present during the growing seasons
drastically increase the risk of heat stroke, as is evidenced by the sudden appearance in
PPE supplier catalogs of cool packs and ice containing vests to help alleviate this problem.
Obviously the use of such equipment by pilots is impractical and a very real threat to
aviation safely. Since all ag-pilots basically independent contractors who are licensed
commercial pesticide applicators, and are qualified to train ground personnel in the use of
PPE, use of said equipment should be at their discretion. Furthermore, pesticide handlers
who have received training in the use of PPE, have documentation of same, and have all
necessary equipment provided to them by their employer, should be able to forego the use
of certain items such as impermeable coveralls if said use would actually be a detriment to
their safety.

       I would be happy to address any additional issues or anwer questions that the
comittee might have.

                Worker Protection Standard Public Meeting
                 By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     McAllen International Civic Center
                               Tourist Building
                         Wednesday, April 24,1996
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of Texas Citrus Mutual and the
Texas Agri Women.

I am Joyce Obst. My husband and I operate a diversified citrus and vegetable farm in the
Alamo area.  Both, Texas Citrus Mutual and the Texas Agri Women have been active in
sponsoring and promoting WPS training since the regulations were announced.  WPS
impacts most agricultural producers, but it has the heaviest impact on producers of labor
intensive crops, like myself.     '    ...                   .

Safety is important to everyone in agriculture, including farmers as well as workers. WPS has
certainly raised the level of awareness about the importance of safety in the agricultural work

Farmers, whom I know, are making a serious effort to comply with WPS.  The training of
workers about common sense safety practices is the most important part of WPS. In general,
I think the WPS rules are overly complex.  When requirements are too complicated, the
compliance with the rules is almost always less than when the rules are-simple and straight
forward. In the case of the WPS rules, there are 140 pages in the manual on how to comply.
I would like to encourage EPA to reduce the length of the regulations and simplify them where-
possible. One grower commented recently that he finds it frustrating to see the general
reference statement on a label that says he is to comply with part 170 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, but not to see at least a summary of the actual rules right on the label.

In terms of informing growers about WPS requirements I would point out that I feel like a
large number of growers are not aware of the changes that were made recently regarding
limited contact tasks, irrigation activities and the reduction in reentry intervals for certain low
toxicity pesticides. If EPA would  publish a summary of these changes, Texas Citrus Mutual
and Texas Agri Women would be glad to distribute them to our members through newsletters
and other means.

I would like to also address the matter of encouraging workers to assume more personal
ownership regarding their own responsibilities for compliance with WPS.  In other words,
individual workers should assume some responsibility for their own safety. As I understand
the present  rule, all the burden is placed on the employer to train and enforce worker
compliance to wear the personal protective equipment and to do things that many times an
employer cannot control. It is totally unreasonable to require an employer to stay in sight of

workers at all times to ensure that they are doing everything they should. Workers should
also have some responsibility for keeping up with his continuing education in the same way
individual farmers are required to keep up with their CEU's in order to maintain their pesticide

As I understand the WPS rules, a farm owner/operator is held responsible for the compliance
by employees of custom applicators and workers employed by a crew leader. We certainly
believe that the  specific employer, ie.,  the custom applicator or the crew leader, should
address  compliance issues regarding their employees and not  the owner/operator, just
because the workers happen to be on his property.
Our final comment is about decontamination facilities.   I understand that under current,
regulations the facilities are required to be in place at a given site for 30 days after the
Reentry Interval has expired.  We believe the reentry requirement on the label means that
the testing of that'chemical indicates that no harmful residue will be left at the end of the
reentry period. Therefore, we urge EPA to  revise the rules to drop the requirement for
decontamination facilities at a given site after the reentry interval has expired.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.  We also want to thank you, Dr.
Goldman, for taking the time to personally conduct these public meetings in various parts of
the country, including this area.

                              LAW OFFICES OF

                     TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC.
                             2S9 SOUTH TEXAS
                           WESLACO. TEXAS 78596
                                               ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF:
  April 23, 1996

  Jeanne Keying
  Office of Pesticide Programs  (7506C)
  U.S. E.P.A.
  401 M Street, SW
  Washington, D.C.  20460

       Re:  Comments on Worker Protection standard Regulations

  Dear Ms. Keying:
       Texas  Rural   Legal  Aid,  Inc.   (TRLA)   is  a  non-profit
  organization which represents indigent farmworkers in Texas. TRLA's
  Farm Worker  Health Si  Safety Project is  dedicated to protecting
  farmworkers and the environment from the hazards of pesticides.

       There are approximately 500,000 farmworkers,  including family
  members, who  live most of the year in Texas.  Over half of all
  Texas counties have at least 500 farmworker residents.  However,
  the majority of  Texas farm  workers  (50%) make  their permanent
  residence in the Lower Rio Grande Valley area  of Texas  and migrate
  throughout the United  States performing farm  labor during much of
  the year.  They are, thus, greatly  impacted by  the Federal Worker
  Protection Standard (WPS) regulations.

       We appreciate the opportunity to provide input regarding these
  critically important regulations and, on behalf of several of our
  migrant farmworker clients, we offer the following comments.
June 22, 1995 Mid-Year Vegetable Meeting
       Attorney  Emilie  Sebesta  attended  the  Mid-Year Vegetable
  Growers Meeting in McAllen, Texas in June, 1995.   At this meeting,
  the  Texas Department  of  Agriculture gave  a Train the Trainer
  session. , While much of the training was very good, Ms.  Sebesta was
  quite distressed by some of the comments made and the reaction,  or
  lack thereof, by TDA officials.   For  instance:

       (1) one farmer asked if he could withhold a  farmworker's
       paycheck  until  the  farmworker  proved he  had  a WPS
       training verification card;'

       (2) another farmer suggested that if a worker had  worked
       for  a farmer  for  more than 5 days and  not proved he or

     she had been trained,  the farmer should fire him or her -
     --- the TDA official's response was "Whatever.11
     Although the TDA officials did state that it is the employer's
responsibility to assure a farmworker has been trained and that an
employer cannot refuse to hire a farmworker for not having a worker
verification card, the impression Ms. Sebesta received from several
farmers was  that they were either, not going to  hire  people who
could not prove they had been trained or fire them after 5 days.

     Farmers should not be allowed to rely  on a workers' word that
he or she has been trained if  they do not have a card.  If workers
begin to  perceive that  growers  are only hiring  people  who have
already been trained, they may begin to say they have been trained
even if they have not  in order to get hired.

     As for the farmers' concern about not  being able to know if a
worker has been trained  if he or  she does  not have  a card,  he or
she should be able to  check with the EPA as trainers are required
to keep track of workers trained and submit that data to the EPA.
If such information is not  readily available now,  it should be made

     We need more enforcement.
     Unfortunately, it appears there are still a significant number
of  growers who  are  not  providing pesticide  training to  their
workers .

      An  informal survey  done  of  farmworker applicants in  our
office during the past twelve month period revealed that in Texas
only  27%  had received training.    For non-Texas  applicants  the
number was 22%.
3.   Retaliation

     Although we  do not know how wide-spread  retaliation  is,  we
have had one client who was,  fortunately,  trained,  but was then,
unfortunately, asked to enter a  field  being sprayed.   He refused
based on his  recent training.   The next year  he  was  not rehired
although he had worked  for this grower for the past two seasons and
other workers were  rehired.  Through the grapevine, he heard the
reason he had not been  rehired was his insistence on not entering
a field that was being  sprayed.

     This,  combined with the rhetoric heard from farmers  at the
June 95 Vegetable Growers Meeting causes us concern.  More random
inspections and investigations by the EPA might help prevent this
kind of behavior.

4.   There Should Be a 0-Day Grace Period Before Training is

     Under the current WPS regulations, an employer is not required
to provide training to a farmworker  until that worker has worked
for him or her for  five  days.   Although employers must give very
basic information to workers from day one, this is not enough.

     Serious pesticide injuries occur just as easily in the first
five days  of  a worker's employment  as thereafter.   By way of
analogy, we do not allow  people in cars to not wear their seatbelts
for the first  5 miles or 5 minutes they are driving.

     In addition,  many  farmworkers  perform  what is  called "day
labor."  A  day laborer may rarely, if  ever, work more than five
days for one  employer.   Yet,  surely  they need  protection just as
much as a worker  who  works  for  one employer  for several weeks or

     At a minimum, the EPA should adopt Texas'  practice of having
employers hand out crop sheets,  or  some  similar flier, to  any
employee who will enter  a treated  field prior  to training.   Crop
sheets list the types of  pesticides generally used on the specific
type  of crop  (e.g.,  carrots),  the  reentry  interval,  and  the
symptoms  of  poisoning.    Crop  sheets  use  easy  to  understand
illustrations  to explain the symptoms and degree of danger,  which
even a person  who cannot read can  understand.   (Examples of crop
sheets are attached.)

5.   Restricted Entry Intervals  and Decontamination Site Time
     Should Not be Shortened,  Even  for So-called  Low Risk

     The WPS regulations are good regulations.   They were created
to protect  a  group  of  workers  who  have  traditionally received
little protection from significant dangers in the workplace.  The
requirements  are  not  overly stringent and should  not  be further
weakened, especially at  this early juncture.

     The 12 hour minimum reentry interval (now reduced to 4 hours
in many  instances)  must  not be shortened.   Long-term  effects of
many pesticides are  still  unknown.    Similarly, how  pesticides
interact with  each other and  other chemicals is largely unknown.
Although   scientists    know   that   many   chemicals   interact
synergistically to create a risk larger  than  simply adding the two
risk factors together, there is  little data to explain exactly how
this happens or to what  degree it happens.

     For instance, two scientists from the University of Texas and
Georgetown Medical Schools  have  conducted studies which indicate
the illnesses  suffered by Gulf War  soldiers was  likely caused by a
synergistic combination of low toxic pesticides,  including mosquito

     Like the Gulf War  soldiers,  farmworkers may be exposed to a
number of different pesticides — from residue on  fields where they
are working to  drift  from fields  bordering the fields where they
are working or their homes.

     There is simply too much that is unknown and too much at risk
to carve  out  any more  exceptions  to  this very  important  set of

6.   Records

     WPS regulations only requires employer to post what pesticides
have been applied and where for 30 days.  There  is no requirement
for recordkeeping beyond  the 30 days.

     Our  experience  with the  Texas  Right  to  Know Act,  which
requires recordkeeping  for 30 years,  is  that  often a farmworker
will not be in a position  to request the information  until after 30
days.  For instance,  in several cases clients have had bad rashes
or dermatitis caused by  pesticides,  but  did  not end up  in our
office for more than  30 days.  Even when the worker has been to a
doctor, often times the doctor will not have-requested the chemical
information  (especially if a Mexican  doctor) .   The  name  of the
chemical may  still be useful to a doctor or to us for helping the
person obtain workers'  compensation benefits long after 30 days.

     With  respect  to  problems  that  may  result from  long-term
chronic  exposure,  a  worker,  doctor,  or  state  health department
official may need to go back many years to see what  the worker has
been exposed  to.

7.   Training Once Every  5 Years Is Not Enough

     Under the  WPS regulations,  farmworkers are only required to
receive training once every  five years.

     This is  not enough.

     Even  well-educated  persons,  for  instance  lawyers,  cannot
remember the  content  of classes or trainings they attended a year
ago.   How can we expect  farmworkers, most of  whom who have very
little formal education,  to  remember a  substantive  training about
pesticides for  five years?

     A five year retraining interval is especially inadequate given
the  sporadic  nature of farm work.  A  farm worker may work for 2
months at farm labor and then not again for another year or longer.
Lack of continual reinforcement and practice make the likelihood of
retaining this  important information even more doubtful.

     For several years  our Health Advocate, Vikki Flores, trained
farmworkers   on  the  hazards of  pesticides and how  to protect

themselves.   Each time she  conducted  a training for  a  group of
workers that she had previously trained, she received comments from
persons who were glad to receive the information again because they
or someone  they knew had suffered  health  affects from pesticide
poisoning but * had forgotten  the  symptoms  and  had related their
health problems to the "flu" or an  "allergy".

     At  a  minimum,  farmworkers  should be  given some  kind  of
training once a year.
Growers Must Remain Responsible for WPS Compliance
     It is our understanding that growers have expressed concern
about being  responsible for compliance with the  WPS regulations
when they use farm labor contractors.

     Growers should be responsible for compliance for a number of
reasons.  Farmworkers are  the grower's employees,  working on the
grower's land, handling the grower's produce,  and are exposed to
the grower's pesticides.  Furthermore,  under the law the grower is
most  likely  going  to  be  ultimately liable if  a farmworker  is
poisoned.  Therefore, it is to the grower's advantage to make sure
workers  are  properly  trained  and   are  not  being  exposed  to

     In addition, our experience with farm labor  contractors has
convinced us they cannot be relied upon to provide WPS training or
otherwise  ensure compliance  with WPS regulations.   Farm  labor
contractors  are  often  no more  educated than  the  farmworkers
themselves.  Many cannot read and could not, therefore, go through
a WPS training manual even  in Spanish.  Farm labor contractors do
not make much money and  cannot,  therefore, be expected to have the
means  to  provide   adequate  training  or  personal  protective
equipment.  They move in an out of the business and  often do not
comply with  the  existing Federal  requirements that  govern  their

     Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the Worker
Protection Standard regulations.

Emilie A. Sebesta
Director, Farmworker
Health & Safety Project
                              Vikki M.  Flor-es
                              Health Advocate,  Farmworker
                              Health &  Safety Project


j   1 1    i   iff       n it i[    ill i, it   i-   "i,,

 t       i I       *|i|i'ri>'i*Wi I **niuii   

5.   Washington
       Public Meeting:

          Pasco, WA
          •  June 19, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •  86 participants (38 registered), including 13 speakers

       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions:

          Washington State Health Department, Richland, WA
          •  June 20, 1996, 8:00 sum.
          •  EPA staff met with Vicki M. Skeers, who gave a presentation on the Washington State
             Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel (PIRT)

          La Ctinica Migrant Health Center, Pasco, WA
          •   June 20, 1996, 9:30 a.m.
          •   EPA staff toured the clinic with Guillermo V. Castaneda, Director.

          Meeting with Growers, Prosser, WA
          •   June 20,1996,11:30 sum.
          •   EPA staff met with representatives of Washington Growers League, Washington Hop
             Commission, Hop Growers of Washington, and other growers.

          Stepping P., Inc., Prosser, WA
          •   June 20,1996, 1:00 p.m.
          •   Tour of small, family-owned currant production facility.
          •   EPA staff met with Dennis Pleasant, Stepping P., Inc.; Phil Hull, Washington Growers
             League, and others.

          Olsen Brothers, Prosser, WA
          •   June 20, 1996, 1:30 p.m.
          •   Tour of family-owned apples, asparagus, cherries, currants, wine and juice grapes, and hops
             production facility.
                                                                            Washington  123

          •   EPA staff met with Larry Olsen and Keith Oliver, Olsen Brothers; Anne George,
             Washington Hop Commission; Patrick Boss, Hop Growers of Washington; Phil Hull,
             Washington Growers League; and others.

          Farmworker Meeting, Pasco, WA
          •   June 20,1996, 6:30 p.m.
          •   EPA staff met with farmworkers; United Farm Workers representative; Daniel Ford and
             Rebecca Smith, Columbia Legal Services; Washington Department of Agriculture; Oregon
             Cooperative Extension Service; Oregon Legal Services staff.
124 Washington

Minutes of the Public Meeting
Pasco, Washington
June 19,1996
           [A transcript of the Washington State public
           meeting is unavailable due to a failure in the
           tape recording of the meeting. The following
           represents  minutes,   rather  than actual

             Mike Gempler: Mr. Gempler noted that
           there are many people involved in pesticide
           health and safety, including the Occupational
           Safety Administration  (OSHA),  the  U.S.
           Department of Labor, the U.S.  Environ-
           mental Protection Agency, Washington  State
           Department of Agriculture, Washington  State
           Department of Labor and Industries, and the
           grower and labor  communities.   He was
           disappointed that OSHA and the Washington
           State Department of Labor and Industries
          were not at the meeting because they are key
           players in the state.  Mr. Gempler stated that
           the key agencies  need to work together to
           overcome political and organizational agendas
           to develop a coordinated regulated strategy
          where everyone  is at  the table. He  was
           particularly concerned that efforts be made to
          coordinate with the OSHA Hazard Communi-
          cations regulations.
             Mr. Gempler noted  that the grower
          community wants to develop safer work-
          places, but  they  need  greater flexibility,
          communication, and coordinated  regulated
          strategies.  As part of the need for better
          communication, he would like to see the
compliance manual  revised  to  include the
seven  recent  changes  to  the  Worker
Protection Standard.
    Mr. Gempler had additional comments at
the end  of the meeting:  He  noted that
spraying operations are highly technical, and
that OSHA had decided not to write parallel
regulations  because  they do  not have the
technical  expertise.  Investigators from the
Washington State Department of Labor and
Industries who investigate Worker Protection
Standard   complaints  do  not  have  the
background to enforce pesticide violations and
should not be setting parallel regulations.

    Phil Hull:   Mr.  Hull said that he had
spoken to growers and did not find too many
major concerns about the Worker Protection
Standards; growers  seem  to have  made
investments   in  equipment  to   comply.
Growers wanted the requirement to post at
the central location eliminated.  On farms with
multiple blocks it was very difficult and staff-
intensive  to comply with this requirement.
On a farm with 70 spray blocks, for example,
a grower  would have to hire someone full-
time to comply. Other concerns: The state
has different  record keeping requirements
from the WPS; workers do  not read the
posted  information; leaving the information
up  for 30 days "is  a  nightmare" and has
nothing to do with safety.
                                                                              Washington  125

              Mr. Hull emphasized that the "How to
          Comply" manual needs  to  be  updated;
          growers do not read Federal Register notices. He
          stated that the EPA updates are not getting to
          the growers. He also urged that duplication
          with  the   state  Hazard  Communication
          regulation be eliminated.

              Hermann G.  Thoennissen:  Mr. Thoen-
          nissen  operates a 40-acre apple  and  pear
          orchard and a consulting firm which included
          1400 acres.  He  was concerned about the
          requirement of central posting for 30  days
          after application. He said that we need to
          trust the American  farmer  and that these
          numerous  regulations reduce the ability of
          farmers to produce safe and cheap agricultural
          products. Mr. Thoennissen criticized the 30-
          day posting requirement as having nothing to
          do with safety, protection, information, or
          even common sense. In some instances, the
          pro-duct has been eaten and digested and the
          posting is  still  up. He was  also concerned
          about   the  duplication   of   numerous

              Walter Suttle:  Mr. Suttle's nursery trained
          460 workers in 1995.  The worker training
          takes about 30 minutes, utilizing a video and a
          discussion about safety  operations on the
          nursery.   The nursery  trained about 133
          handlers which took about two hours.  One
          hundred and twenty  of these workers had to
          have the more comprehensive handler training
          only because they dipped cuttings in rooting
          hormones.  He said the system for training
          verification cards is not working and that he  is
          worried about duplication of training efforts.
    With 800 different crops on 550 acres,
Mr. Suttle was anxious to be allowed to use
smaller signs.  REIs, he noted, are difficult
with so many people working on so many
different crops.  Oral notification is also too
difficult. Some  beds may post 500 signs in
'one day.
    Mr. Suttle made additional comments at
the end of the public meeting: He noted that
it is very time consuming to put together
information on pesticides used in the last 30
days,   and  that no   one  looks  at  the
information.  In addition, REIs  present a
problem when he needs to get into an area to
pull plants for specific orders.  He feels that
some generic REIs may not be justified. Mr.
Suttle was particularly concerned about the
effects of the REIs on minor use crops.  The
chemical -industry does not feel it is worth
getting an exception for REIs on minor use
crops. For some minor use crops, there may
only be one effective pesticide registered for
use and no chemical with a short enough REI.
He has had to discontinue growing lilacs and
mock  oranges  because the  only  effective
pesticide registered for those crops had REIs
that were too long.

    Mandie Scheckert: Ms. Scheckert worked
as  a farmworker for 30 years.  She said that
60% of farmers do not care about workers.
Three years ago Ms. Scheckert was sprayed
and suffered a year of burns and rashes. She
stated that Hispanics will not readily go to
doctors because the farmers threaten them.
She stated that what was needed was strong
enforcement; laws are no good if they are not
enforced. Ms. Scheckert said no one else will
126  Washington

speak out because farmworkers are afraid of
losing their jobs.

    Mary Phillips:  Ms. Phillips said that she
was sprayed in 1993 and has had trouble with
speech and other health effects.  Ms.  Phillips
reported that farmers tell their workers that if
they say anything, they will lose their jobs. Ms.
Phillips urged strong enforcement; without it,
the WPS will not be effective.

    Daniel  Ford:  Mr. Ford, with  Columbia
Legal Services, reported that his organization's
farmworker  clients  have  had  numerous
problems with pesticides, including problems
with inhalation, dermal exposure, rashes, eye
irritation and many other health effects. Some
of these effects  last for days,  months or
    Columbia's clients have reported that they
were told to  work  in fields  while  pesticides
were drifting onto them or while the REI was
still in effect. Workers reported that signs stay
up all the time, even during harvesting.  When
this happens, workers don't take  the signs
    Many  of Columbia's  clients  have not
received the  WPS  pesticide safety training.
Columbia's clients who are Spanish speaking
handlers have reported that they  have not
received the  information on the pesticide
   Many of Columbia's clients have not been
told  about  decontamination  facilities  or
provisions  for  emergency medical care. A
number of Columbia's clients have been fired
for complaining to their  supervisors about
problems with  PPE,  complaining to state
agencies, or seeing doctors.
    Mr. Ford said that regular inspections are
needed   with    bilingual   investigators.
Appropriate  penalties  are  needed   for
violations. Warning letters are not enough for
serious violations. Closed systems should be
required for Toxicity Level 1 pesticides, as is
required   in   California.   Cholinesterase
monitoring should be required  for workers
who regularly handle highly toxic pesticides.
California has required this since 1974. One
study   showed   24%  of  handlers   had
cholinesterase  levels   that  were  seriously

    Dr. Laura Byerly:  Dr. Byerly worked for
the last two years in a health clinic servicing
farmworkers.  She said that not one single
patient that came to her with symptoms they
attributed to pesticide exposure knew what
pesticides he or she had been working with.
Dr. Byerly noted that we need to overcome
the barriers that prevent them from knowing.
Until farmworkers feel safe asking questions
about what they are working with, the Worker
Protection Standard offers no protection.

    Dr. Alice Larson:   Dr.  Larson  has been
involved in pesticide health and safety issues
since 1985.  She has  recently conducted a
needs  assessment of WPS  pesticide  safety
training in Washington State.  She said that
growers have been making handlers into
permanent employees and seem to be more
concerned that handlers receive training than
                                                                        Washington  127

              Dr. Larson said that her investigation did
          not find either handlers or workers using the
          Washington State WPS training cards.  She
          noted that many growers expressed concern
          about  the   overlap  with   the  Hazard
          Communications standard.
              Dr. Larson is  concentrating on worker
          training in the Yakima Valley and is targeting
          2,000 workers there, but she believed that
          workers in other parts of Washington still
          need training.  She urged that the national
          workgroup on pesticide  safety training and
          training verification  be  reconvened.   The
          workgroup was very helpful in  developing
          materials and the verification systems, but it
          needs to meet again to share information
          about training concerns, materials  needs, etc.
              Dr. Larson said that a formal evaluation of
          the national  WPS pesticide  safety  training
          program needs to be conducted to maximize
          successful training programs and verification
          systems and  deliver  better  training and
          materials in areas needing further assistance.
          Eight now each  state approaches  training

              Larry Bauman: Mr. Bauman said that the
          burden of the Worker Protection Standards
          falls  heavily  on  operators  of farms  with
          diversified crops.  His farm represents the
          concerns of row crop growers.   He has 60
          different fields and cannot keep up with the
          additional costs of compliance. At his farm,
          management does all the spraying and uses
          directed spraying with no drift problems. He
          urged EPA to factor in different types of
          farms.  He does not want to have the same
          rules as single crop  growers.  For example,
although he sprays only ounces of pesticides,
he is required to suit up the same as people.
who are saturated with chemicals.
    Mr. Bauman was also concerned with the
amount of paperwork required; his office staff
spends half their time dealing with these
paperwork requirements, which  he feels are
not accomplishing anything.  He has had to
comply with state record keeping for 17 years
and would like to see records on how much
this regulation costs.  He said that workers do
not   look  at  the   central   notification

    Ricardo  Lucero:   Mr.  Lucero  is  the
Western Migrant Stream Coordinator for the
Northwest Regional Primary Care Association
in  Seattle.    He   coordinates  services  to
farmworkers and is a member of the Migrant
Advisory Committee to the Department of
Health and Human Services.
    Mr. Lucero said that some farmers are not
protecting their workers. He urged growers to
work with the migrant and community health
centers  which  can   help  farmers  help
farmworkers   read   central   notification
information and tell them what it means. He
urged farmers to get hold of local farmworker
service resources to work together.

    Lucina Siguenza:  Ms. Siguenza works with
Community Health Centers.  She complained
that no one was speaking in Spanish at the
meeting. She had  helped EPA's Regional
Office  try to attract  farmworkers  to the
meeting through announcements on Spanish
radio stations and in  Spanish newspapers, but
obviously their efforts were not enough. She
128  Washington

felt that a different approach was needed to
reach workers and help them protect them-
selves. She was willing to provide assistance.

   Duncan Wurm: Mr. Duncan represents
farm and forest operations.  He noted that
training materials  are not reaching  forest
workers. He urged development of videos
and manuals for the forest industry.
                                                                      Washington  129

Registered Participants in the Public Meeting
          Margot Barnett
          Strategic Options Consulting

          Tom Barry
          DuPont Agricultural Products

          Larry Bauman
          L&L Farms
Mike Gempler
Washington Growers League

Chuck Guptill
The McGregor Co.

Brooks Hammel
ISK Biosciences
          Cornelia Brim
          The Capital Press

          Laura Byerly, M.D.
          Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center

          Yakima, WA

          Burt Chestnut
          Washington State Farm Bureau

          Gerald Cox
          Washington Dept. of Labor and Industries

          Fred Degiorgio
          DuPont Agricultural Products

          Daniel Ford
          Columbia Legal Services

          Wally Frank
          L&L Farms

          Leo Geeta
          Columbia Basin Health
Mike Harris
UAP Northwest

Mike Haskett
Washington State Dept. of Agriculture

Robert S. Hays
Idaho Dept.  of Agriculture

Rosa Hernandez
Northwest Justice Project

Phil Hull
Washington Growers League

Alice Larson
Work Group on Pesticide Health & Safety

Erik Loney

Ricardo Lucero
Northwest Regional Primary Care
130  Washington

John Massey
Western Farm Service, Inc.

Adam Navarro

Jose Perez

Mary Phillips

Carrie Schafer
Tri-City Herald

Mandie Schickert

Alan Schreiber
Richland, WA

Lucina Siguenza
Community Health Centers
Walter Slabaugh
ISK Biosciences

Rebecca Smith
Columbia Legal Services

Walter Suttle
Monrovia Nursery Co.

Hermann G. Thoennissen
AgriNorth West

Sam Thornton
Washington State Potato Commission

Estela Urrutia
La Familia Sana/Valley Family Health Care

Duncan Wurm
Washington Friends of Farms and Forests
                                                                    Washington  131

Site Visits  and Small Group Discussions
           Washington State Health Department, Richland, WA
           •   June 20,1996, 8:00 a.m.
           •   EPA staff met with Vicki Skeers, who gave a presentation on the Pesticide Incident
              Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel, a 13-member panel composed of
              representatives from state agencies, universities, and the private sector. The system was
              created in 1989 as a result of an alleged incident involving farmworkers exposed to paraquat
              drift. PIRT serves as a central clearinghouse and reviews incident reports.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —     Physicians have been required to report pesticide incidents since 1989.

              —     The most commonly reported pesticide incidents involved eye injuries. Reported
                     incident rates are highest in orchards. The Washington Dept. of Health publishes an
                     annual report summary of the PIRT Review Panel, and has developed a short radio
                     feature for farmworkers about pesticide eye injuries.

           La Clfnica Migrant Health Center, Pasco, WA
           •   June 20,1996, 9:30 sum.
           •   EPA staff toured La Clinica Migrant Health Center with Guillermo V. Castaneda, Director.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —     Lack of adequate housing contributes  to health related problems. Some farmworkers
                     sleep in treated fields.

              —     Eye-related pesticide problems are seen most frequently.

              	     Many growers bring workers to the clinic.  Some growers contribute financially to
                     the clinic.

           Meeting with Growers, Prosser, WA
           •  June 20,1996,11:30 a.m.
           •  EPA staff met with Phil Hull, Mike Gempler, Dennis Pleasant of the Washington Growers
              League; Anne George and Susan Killer of the Washington Hop Commission; Patrick Boss
              of the Hop Growers of Washington; and Dick and Larry Olsen of Olsen Brothers.
           •  Among the issues discussed at the meeting  were:

 132  Washington       ~~~

    —     Growers believe that Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
           regulations and WPS overlap, and that jurisdiction should be clarified in order to
           promote better coordination of regulations, enforcement, and reporting.

    —     Concerns that central posting of information on pesticide applications is
           burdensome to growers and should be eliminated since workers do not use it.

    —     Minor use crops need help in registering chemicals with shorter REIs. For some
           crops and some pests there may be only one pesticide registered for use.

    —     Hops industry statistics show low rates of occupational  injuries related to pesticides
           compared with other injuries. Pesticide use is over-regulated, growers believe; other,
           higher-risk activities are not regulated.

Stepping P., Inc., Prosser, WA
•   June 20,1996,1:00 p.m.
•   EPA staff toured a small, family-owned currant production facility.
•   EPA staff met with Dennis Pleasant, owner; Phil Hull, Washington Growers League and
•   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

    —     Minor use crops, such as currants, suffer from lack of choice of pesticides. Difficult
           to switch to a less toxic pesticide with a shorter REI if only one pesticide is registered
           for use on currants to treat a certain pest or disease.

    —     Currant producers believe they have little problem with drift, due to low-riding
           application equipment specifically selected for use on currants. Handler PPE
           requirements should be specific to exposure risk.

Olsen Brothers, Prosser, WA
•  June 20,1996,1:30 p.m.
•   EPA staff toured a large, family-owned farm. Crops include hops, apples, asparagus,
    cherries, currants, wine grapes and juice grapes.
•   EPA staff met with Larry Olsen and Keith Oliver, Olsen Brothers Farm; Anne George,
    Washington Hop Commission; Patrick Boss, Hop Growers of Washington; Phil Hull,
    Washington Growers League and others.
•   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:
                                                                       Washington  133

             	    Recommendation that EPA eliminate central notification posting of pesticides.
                    Workers don't use it, application maps are difficult to follow on large complex
                    operations, and postings are very staff intensive to keep current.

             	    Growers believe that farm managers can be relied upon to keep workers out of
                    recently treated areas. Some fields are seven miles from central notification point.
                    Washington State record keeping, state incident reporting laws and federal
                    requirements for material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provide workers with adequate

             	    Participants stated that growers are very careful to not expose workers. Most farmers
                    care about their workers. It is part of being a team and running a successful
                    operation. Treating workers well is good business, but the occasional bad operation
                    gets all the publicity.

             	    Field posting, safety training and PPE are seen as important protection measures,
                    while central posting is burdensome and not necessary.

          Farmworker Meeting, Pasco, WA (See transcript, p. 136)
          •  June 20,1996, 6:30 p.m.
          •   EPA staff met with four farmworkers; Dan Ford and Rebecca Smith, Columbia Legal
              Services, and others.
          •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              	     Concerns that farmworkers in Washingtpn State are not consistently receiving the
                    WPS training. Some workers said they had received handler training and PPE, others
                     did not.

              	     Concerns that posting is not kept up-to-date, and as a  result, workers are not being
                    warned about recently treated fields. Reports that posted signs are staying up the
                    whole season.

              	     Reports that farmworkers have been sprayed or exposed to pesticide drift, and told
                     by growers or crew leaders to continue working or be  fired.

              	     Concerns that washing/decontamination facilities are not being provided
                     consistently, as required by WPS.
134  Washington

Reports that workers experiencing symptoms of pesticide poisonings were unable to
get information on the name of the pesticide used, either at the central notification
point or from their supervisor.

Farmworkers fear being fired if they ask for protection or report violations or
poisonings.  Workers who attended this meeting reported that some co-workers did
not attend because they were afraid of being fired.

Recommendations for more enforcement of the WPS, unannounced inspections,
bilingual investigations not in the presence of the grower, more information about
where to report violations, and follow-up on complaints.

Emphasis on training physicians, nurses, and other health professionals in
recognizing and treating pesticide poisoning.
                                                            Washington  135

Transcript of Farmworker Meeting
           Pasco, WA

              Daniel Ford: There are some farmworkers
           here who came and became  aware of the
           meeting through the United Farm Workers
           union, who are here and so we can give you
           the experiences of the legal services plan and
           these   gentlemen  can   give  their  own
           experiences.  Rebecca Smith, who is here and
           is a colleague of mine with Columbia Legal
           Services, offered to  interpret and Conchi
           [Rodriguez] will help us if we get in a jam.

               [Introduction of people inaudible]

              Daniel Ford: Thank you.  We do have a
           few people who've been delayed and a couple
           more  people   who  are  coming,  Rosa
           Hernandez with the Northwest Justice Project
           in Pasco and ... I understand that the primary
           purpose for this meeting was for the folks
           from EPA and state agencies who work with
           EPA to hear directly from farmworkers. You
           heard something of the perspective of legal
           services last night and what we learn from our
           clients, and we are happy to talk more about
           those issues, but first I suggest  that we  go
           ahead and allow farmworkers who are here to
           tell you about their experiences.

               Worker; What we are going to talk about
           is about something that happened last year.
           We  made  a  complaint about  pesticides
           because we got pretty sick from them.  We
           made a complaint and we never understood
what happened.  We need to know this thing
because this is something that happens  to
farmworkers at work.

    Rebecca Smith: Can  you explain to  us
what happened?

    Worker: What happened was we got to
work and we went into a field that was
recently sprayed. The foreman didn't pay any
attention to us. He wasn't there when we got
there and after one hour we started getting
sick.  We had to go to the doctor and even
now, speaking for myself, I still don't feel
good. That's  all I have to say on my behalf.

    Worker: Same things that my friend has
said. We got sick because we went into a field
that was recently sprayed.

    Rebecca Smith: Can tell us what happened
to you? What symptoms?

    Worker: I had dizziness, vomiting, rash in
my body, itchiness in the eyes. Everything is
because they don't have more precautions  for
workers who went into  the field without
knowing that the field was recently sprayed.
After one hour of work we were sick.

    Rebecca  Smith: Did you ever find  out
what it was that was sprayed?
    Worker: No, we never found out what it
 136 Washington

    State Rep: I am interested to know who
 the incident was reported to.

    Worker: To the foreman.

    Worker:  To  the  foreman and  then to
 Labor and Industries.

    Worker: After passing the information to
 Labor and Industries, we never found  out
 what happened.  The first thing that Labor
 and Industries does is tell the employer  and
 nothing is ever resolved.

    Worker: When you make  a complaint to
 the health inspectors, the first thing they do is
 talk to the employer and so the employer
 sends  someone to clean the  bathroom  and
 when the inspector arrives, the  bathrooms are
 clean and everything is fixed and makes it
 seem that the workers are lying.

    Worker: One year they gathered all of us
 at the shop  to watch TV to see what  the
 chemicals are about.  Then one worker from
 El  Salvador   stood  up  and asked  what
 guarantees we have if we die in the field.  He
was told that someone who dies in the field is
 the same as if an animal dies in  the field. This
was  in   1988  and  the  person  was a
representative from the chemicals.  In this
ranch,  there are chemicals that are 48 hours
and  chemicals  that  are  72  hours  and
sometimes we have to go in and work after 40
hours and that is the way it is. The first thing
that the foreman says is, "If you want to work,
fine; if not, hit the road."
    Bill Jordan (EPA Rep): Is this just one
 grower or do you see this in a lot of growers?

    Worker In this area of Tri-Cities, this is a
 big problem.

    State Rep: Do you have proof that this is
 a problem here?

    Worker: There is a problem with having
 proof, because the foreman takes the papers
 and burns them.

    State Rep: What papers?

    Worker: The labels.  The problem is that
 you tell the foreman that the chemical makes
 you sick and then he takes the labels and says
 that this will not hurt you. Also, they change
 the labels at their convenience.

    Worker I will like that since we are here in
 this meeting, and we are talking about this
 subject,  to pay more attention to our lives.
 Because we are working, we pay taxes, they
 take money from us to pay the ones in the
 office. Because our lives are valuable too. I
 believe that even though we are dirty, we still
 have value, and this is all I have to say.

    Carol Parker (EPA Rep): Does anybody
know if these incidents are  being tracked?
Not necessarily by the farmworker, but by
another person?

    Daniel Ford:  In  Washington State, we
have what is  called  the  Pesticide  Incident
Review  and  Tracking  Panel   and  the
                                                                       Washington  137

          information that tihis panel gets depends on
          people reporting pesticides incidents to state
          agencies.  This can happen through several
          ways.  There  is the state law that requires
          physicians  to  report  probable  pesticides
          incidents.   In fact, relatively  few of the
          incidents reported in Washington are reported
          by  physicians.  Most of the  farmworker
          incidents are reported through  the workers
          compensation  system.    There  are  also
          incidents  reported through the  Poisoning
          Control System in our state, in reports to the
          State Department of Health, Department of
          Agriculture or the  Health and Safety section
          of the Department of Labor and Industries.

              Worker: There is a thing here with my
          fellow worker.  He  had a  problem  with
          chemicals. We took him to see a doctor to
          Prosser or Wapato.  Unfortunately, at that
          ranch, Broetje ranch, if you feel sick, you have
          to  report to the foreman.   You  go  to the
          office and they tell you to go to the hospital
          and at the hospital they tell you  you don't
          have anything and  to go back to work. Then
          when you go  to Labor and Industries, they
          don't pay any attention to you.  You put your
          claim, and they tell you they are going to put
          it into the system. Evidently our word has no

              Worker: He is still sick, sometimes he gets
          dizzy.    He   has  headaches  because  of

              Worker: I cannot get into a sprayed field
          because I feel dizzy. And that happened to
    Daniel Ford: We read a report by the U.S.
 government, the General Accounting Office.
 And we  have experience representing  our
 clients that there is a lot of under-reporting of
 pesticide  incidents for various reasons.  One
• being  that  workers  may   not  recognize
 pesticide  poisonings  by themselves,   and
 obviously this is  connected to  workers not
 receiving the training.  Also workers being
 afraid to  go to the doctor or not having the
 money to go to the doctor.  And doctors
 sometimes  not  being aware  of pesticide
 poisonings  and workers  not knowing the
 information to give to the doctor. We had the
 experience of having clients see a doctor in an
 emergency room or a clinic visit, who found
 that the problem is not related  to pesticides.
 The client comes to us and we are  able to
 refer  him to a doctor who  is more familiar
 with pesticide cases and may be diagnosed as
 pesticide related. All doctors are not equally
 aware  of   the   symptoms  of  pesticide
 poisonings  and how to take an occupational

     Bill Jordan: Have any of you had training
 to   recognize  symptoms   of  pesticide

     Worker: Some time ago they showed us
 something on TV and had classes later.

     Worker:  I never had been ill until that

     Bill Jordan: Was there any training at the
138  Washington

    Worker [To another worker]: Did they
 give you training or tell you about what was
 bad for you?

    Worker: No, we didn't have it.

    State Rep: You referred to a video. What
 was this about?

    Worker: That was a video in '88. A video
 about how to climb a ladder and how to  be
 careful with  using a  ladder.    That was
 something kind of to cover our eyes because
 we never had anything like that.

    Daniel Ford: There is another gentleman
 here  and  maybe he  could  give you some
 information from his perspective and he could
 participate in answering the general questions.

    Worker: I worked since  1977 to 1995 in
 the Tri-Cities area and all of a sudden they
 discharged me from work. I  had been spray-
 ing all that time.  We started spraying since
January 20th until August 15th or 20th every
 year.  And when they took away my job, the
 farmer told me that they had younger workers
 and that since I had an  operation I had lost
 the ability to work. Then I told him that was
 no reason to take away my job.  And he said
 he was very sorry, that he is the boss and he
 can take away the job any time he wants. But
 for the pesticides,  they never gave us any
 training.  They would tell us, "Here are the
 chemicals, here is the list, and be careful not
 to get the  chemical in your  face and go to
    Daniel Ford: It is not clear to me what
 kind of work do you do.

    Worker: Spraying.

    State Rep: Is he licensed?

    Worker: No.

    Daniel Ford: Who are  the people that
 replaced him?

    Worker: Other people working there.

    Daniel Ford: Does he knows if the other
 people are licensed?

    Worker: No, they aren't.

    Rebecca Smith: Is this in 1977?

    Worker: Until 1995.

    State Rep:  Did he mention something
 about an operation?
    State Rep: Was this related to your work?

    Worker: To my belief it was. When the
doctor interviewed me, he told at first that it
was .related to work, but when I  had an
interview with the  administrator, then the
doctor said no.

    State Rep: Which administrator, the ranch
or the hospital?
                                                                       Washington  139

             Worker: The hospital, the doctor.  The
          doctor  told  that  it  was  not  related to
          pesticides. Like my fellow workers here, they
          are saying the truth. They only say that they
          are going to do things but they don't.  The
          ones that get passed by are the workers all the
          time. They know clearly that every three or
          two  months that the inspectors go  to the
          ranch and when they know that they are going
          out,  they tell us, we need to be very careful.
          But that is for their good, not for ours. Here
          you  have me, I'm  ill due to pesticides. My
          joints hurt, my feet, I get dizzy, I have like a
          rashness in my throat. And yet, they told me
          at the last minute that is not related. Where I
          worked, there was  a young man  named
          Natividad, he became ill.  They sent  him  to
          Seattle and did not pay him transportation  or
          lost  days. And then at the last minute, they
          gave him a report that it was not related  to

             State Rep: How long did you feel ill before
          they fired him?

             Worker; Since 1990.

              State Rep: Did he complain about this?

              Worker: No.

              State Rep: Did they know that you were
           feeling sick?

              Worker: Yes.

              Worker [To another  worker]: There is
           something here that you should verify. She
asked you who told you that you were not
sick, if it was the administrator, and you said it
was the hospital administrator. But it was the
ranch administrator not the doctor.  At first
the doctor said you were sick but then later he
told you that it was not related to work.

    Daniel Ford: Last night there was another
meeting, and there was a complaint to our
concern  by a  lot  of the  farmers  at  that
meeting, about the legal requirements to keep
a record in a central place for 30 days of the
pesticides that are applied in the workplace.  I
guess I have two questions  I would like to
hear your answers to.  Number  one is: Are
you aware that that information is posted or
has been posted in a place where you worked,
where you can find that information about
pesticide  applications?   And  the  second
question is: Would that information be useful
to you and what  is the best way to get that
information  to  you?   It  is  really  three
questions and might be confusing but if you
have thoughts about any of those concerns or
questions, I think the people here would be
interested in that.

    Worker: What I would  like  to know  is
where could I get that information.  Because
this is something that we have never known.
That's all.

    Daniel Ford: Would it be useful to you to
have that information?

    Worker: It might  be helpful to us having
 some knowledge of  the  chemicals we are
140  Washington

    Daniel Ford: Do you have ideas on the
best way to get that information to you?

    Worker: No, I don't.

    Bill Jordan: The regulation says that the
information must be at one place, available to
the worker, and that the farmer must tell the
workers, when they start on the job.  Did that
happen to any of you?

    Worker: No.

    Worker: I believe that the chemicals, like
in the ranch, there are various ranches that
unfortunately, they take the bags of chemicals
and we don't even see them. But there are
some ranches where  I have seen this  at
[referring to the pesticide safety poster] But
there are other ranches -that it does not matter
if they have 100 because if you are working
here and the truck is spraying, it drifts on you
and the information is some other place.

    Carol Parker:  Is it your grower that is
spraying you or is it a neighbor?

    Worker: In the same ranch.

    Carol Parker: And they know it is drifting
on you?

    Worker: Right now where I'm working,
everything is fine.  The only place that has
problems is Broetje Ranch.

    Unidentified Speaker: So, there are some
that are better than others?
    Workers: Yes.

    State Rep: When they  sprayed, do you
know  if  it  is  a fungicide,  herbicide or

    Workers: We don't know, but if they
would put a notice saying, "Poison— don't get
in"... In that ranch that we are talking about;
Broetje, there are signs that say, "Do Not
Enter," but the signs have been there two or
three months. They never put them down.
They never put them down, if one wants to
go in, you go in. I believe that all of you know
well that when there is a warning sign, after 72
hours it should be taken down. That's all.

    State Rep: Are  they  working  on  the
orchards or in row crops?

    Worker: In orchards.  They are the ones
[referring to the other workers] that have been
working recently.

    Worker: I worked for this grower since
the end of 1986 to 1991. And there  I found
out about discrimination against  Mexicans,
even the Mexican foremen. Sometimes things
happen and the owner never finds out.  In
1988-1989 I made a big strike to Broetje, I was
a leader in the strike. They fired me. Then,
with the  lawyer Guadalupe Gamboa,  he
helped me and in the library there was Broetje,
YoYo, Jessie Valle and I asked them why they
fired me.  And Jessie Valle  said it was Yoyo
and Yoyo said no, it was Jessie. Mr. Broetje
turned  red and Jessie was trembling. And I
said, why are you trembling, we are not going
                                                                       Washington  141

          to fight. I just want to know why I was fired.
          Then Broche told me that he had nothing
          against me because it was something good for
          all the workers.  Because the bin had been
          paid at $8.50,  they would deduct $1.00 for
          bonuses, leaving $7.50 and after the strike, we
          were paid at $12.00 an hour.

              State Rep: The boss himself, Broetje, told
          you this.

              Worker:  Yes. And he told me that if I
          came back, I could have my job back.  So I
          asked him, "If  I come back, is the foreman
          going to be angry?"  And then  he said, "If
          you go to work, and a foreman  gives you a
          hard time, you tell me."

              State Rep:   Was it a foreman that was
          giving you a hard time?

              Worker:  It was Yoyo, his brother-in-law.

              Unidentified  Speaker:  What have you
          done to educate yourselves, being agricultural

              Workers:    Unfortunately,  we  cannot
          educate ourselves. Because if I need educating
          and you're the  teacher, you  are  going to
          educate me.   In the situation  concerning
          chemicals, there has to be a representative that
          will tell me, step by step, so I can learn to
          educate myself.  Because if you don't explain,
          itfs like ...  because I don't know what kind of
          chemical it  is.   It could be poison and I
          wouldn't know it, and I could hurt myself.
   Unidentified  Speaker:  So  haven't they
given you any pamphlets like this or have you
ever gotten pamphlets like these?

   Workers: No. We have put in complaints
but no one pays them any attention.

    Carol Parker:  Have you ever been warned
to stay off the field, verbally or have you seen

    Worker: Yes, at other ranches, but they
are smaller ranches, of 10 or 15 acres.

    Carol Parker:  Have they also told you to
stay off of the farm?

    Worker: There are ranchers that do, but
not in that one.

    Daniel Ford:  When  any  of you were
sprayed or had pesticide drift on you, were
you aware of any facilities on the farm in
which you could wash off the spray?
    Daniel Ford: Anybody?
       rker: Yes, we had showers.
    Daniel Ford: And you were a sprayer?
    Facilitator: What type of safety equipment
 did you use when spraying?
142  Washington

   Worker: The first thing we have is rubber
boots, a suit, gloves, a face mask, goggles.

   Unidentified Speaker: Did you have the
opportunity  to   change   filters... [Taping
suspended momentarily]

   Worker: He got sick, he got a rash, and
his blood was poisoned. He tried to get help
locally, when he found that he could not get
cured here, he returned to Mexico.  He after
becoming stable, was still sick. And in 1991, at
the same pkce, a 32-year old man died due to
chemicals. When they took him to Seattle for
an examination, they found his blood was
poisoned and he had a paralyzed lung, and
from those illness, he could never recover.
And  they  were told  it was  not due to
pesticides. And then after him, the following
year I became ill.

   Bill Jordan: When you were spraying, were
there days  when it was too hot  to  wear
protective equipment?

   Worker:  No, we always had to use it,
because there are chemicals that are dangerous
to your eyes.  We always had to use them.
There were times the temperature was about
80 to 85 degrees, but we still had  to spray
because the chemical was more effective in
hot rather than cool temperatures. And there
are chemicals that are more  effective to the
plants when sprayed at night. Since we are
agricultural workers, we have to  work as the
work comes, cool or hot.
    Dr. Alice Larson:  Could you ask him,
how did he know that a chemical was way
dangerous, and what protective clothing to

    Worker: The only thing that we have are
the labels on the bags and drums, but they are
all written in English. We don't know anything
about  that.  But, the  foreman  said that
anything with a picture of a skull and bones
was dangerous. That's the only way we would
know.  We were never given any instructions.
And that is why sometimes we get sick.

    Bill Jordan: What would be one of the
things that would be most important to make
working around pesticides safer?

    Worker: Well, in the first place, like she
said, to  have a little education like all the
people who work with chemicals. Another
thing  that I would  like is,  that we could
communicate more with you  and to have
more conversations with you. There are many
complaints and many people that were not
aware  of what was going to happen today.
But if you notify us that on a given date you
are going to have a meeting... many of us
don't want to come  because we are afraid.
Like in that ranch, they tell you , if you don't
come  tomorrow, don't come back. They
threaten you.

    Worker: That is what happened to me for
fear of losing my job and security.   But it
didn't  do me any good. The administrator
said, "Up to here and no more."
                                                                       Washington  143

              Daniel Ford: If the people who work for
           the government want to hear more from
           farmworkers, what is the best way for them to

              Worker; I think the best way would be for
           us to be more united. There are only four of
           us here. But if there were 20  of us here, our
           case would be stronger. There would be more
           complaints and more commentaries, because
           everybody  has  their own  thoughts  and
           grievances. I can't say what bothers someone

              Daniel Ford: What I'm asking is, is there
           a better place to meet or a better way to tell
           people about the meeting?

              Worker: That's the problem.

              Unidentified Speaker:  On Monday and
           Tuesday,  in  Oregon,  our  lawyers  and
           paralegals went out with pamphlets and stuff
           to the farmworkers and there  seemed to be a
           consensus of fear, as far as speaking out.
           They didn't with us, but there was fear of the
           farmer. And I think that he is right, there still
           is a lot of fear,  because their livelihood is farm
           work and that's it. Where do they go except
           to another farmer who might be practicing the
           same thing. And if they do get a farmer that is
           a good one, they are lucky. Not everybody is
           going to get lucky.  So, the population is  so
           big that not all of them are going to come and
           meet, and speak and say, "I hear this and I
           hear that."  So, I think  that trying to get
           everybody together  is going to be a  big
    Worker: It is going to be a big problem,
because  they  say just because  they  are
organizers for the Farm Workers Union of
Cesar Chavez they got fired.  And they think,
"Just for being an organizer...If I don't bother
the  foreman..."  But  because  it is  not
convenient to the rancher  because I am a
believer of the union... If I go and I ask them
for work, I will ask them for $5.50 per hour.
But if three other people come behind me and
he can pay them $4.25, he will hire them and
not me.

    Carol Parker:   The Worker Protection
Standards require cards to be issued out after
you've been trained  about  pesticide safety.
Have you ever seen these cards?

    Worker:  No, it's like I said, they would tell
us in meetings that they are to send someone
to  have our blood checked for pesticides.
That's what they said, but they never did it.

    Daniel Ford: I have a question about that
for the EPA. The EPA has been considering
requiring blood test  for people  who  spray,
mix, or load pesticides.  I am wondering
where the EPA is on  the process.

    Bill Jordan: As far as I know, the last year
and a half, we have not worked on that and I
don't know what happened before then.

    Daniel Ford: As I understand it, there are
various ways to test poisonous levels  in the
blood.   Many ways are accepted by  the
medical community.  The important thing is
to choose one method that is  standard, so  that
144  Washington

if the blood is checked by different labs, the
results come out the same.

   Worker:  I would like to make a comment.
If the people  representing  the  government
work at the  Department of  Labor  and
Industries, I would be very interested, I think
everybody would be interested.. If you will be
making an investigation about chemicals, the
persons that will  be going from the Health
Department never let the farmer know that
they will be coming. It would be best when
the farmer finds out, is when the person is
already there. That is what happens, that they
let him know ahead of time.

   Unidentified Speaker: If the inspector is
from the EPA, this does not happen.  But
that's not at the federal level,  the  state  is
different.  The reason for the state to do it
this way is because the state wants the farmer
and the applicator of pesticides to be present.

   Worker: The  person  should be present.
Before  the  strike there  were about three
bathrooms for about 400 people. There was
no water, no soap, not drinking water. Now,
after the strike, there is water to drink, but not
to wash your hands. You need to wash your
hands because they are dirty from chemical
powders. If there is no water to wash your
hands when you go to eat,  poison gets into
your food.

   Daniel Ford: Anything else?

   Worker:  From my part  I think this is all.
We said everything.
    Worker:  The most important thing is that
attention  be paid to what we have said.
Because if we talk and talk and everything
stays the same, it is like if we had not spoken.

    Worker:   Another thing, now that I am
sick, they sent me to three places and from
those three places they "annulled" me. I went
to the Department of Labor and Industries
and they told me that I could not do anything.
I went to the isurance people, to the injury
claims part  and everybody  "annulled" me.
They sent me a paper, a lot of papers, to tell
me they couldn't do anything for me, that they
were sorry, but that they could do nothing for
me unless I was dying. Then, why do they tell
you to go to these places if they are going to
do nothing for you?  The same  administrator
told me to go to a place that could help me.
I went there and the same thing happened.
The people that are working there are at fault.
They give you a bunch of papers, you fill them
out and nothing happens. The paper that you
gave me for my back injury, I took it to a
lawyer and until now he has given me no
response, not even an appointment.

    Daniel Ford:  Thank you, everyone, for
coming, everybody.
                                                                       Washington  145

Written Comments
          Hermann G. Thoennissen

          Butt Chestnut
          Chestnut Orchards

          Daniel G. Ford
          Columbia Legal Services

          Ricardo Lucero
          Allen T. Apodaca
          Northwest Regional Primary Care Association

          Leo Sax
          Washington Growers Clearing House

          Burt Chestnut
          Washington State Farm Bureau

          Washington State Nursery & Landscape Association

          Sam Thornton
          Washington State Potato Commission
146  Washington

June 19, 1996
                                                P.O. BOX 2308. TRI-CITIES. WA 99302-2308
Jeanne Keying
Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Hermann G. Thoennissen. I'm a 40 acre
grower of pears and apples in Tieton, Washington. I also work for AgriNorthwest where I direct
all operations connected to a 1400 acre orchard. Through my consulting company HTG
International I have worked with some on the largest companies in the world. I currently serve
on the Washington State Horticultural Association Board of Directors and I'm a commissioner on
the Washington State Tree Fruit Research Commission. I'have worked in horticulture for the
past 25 years in different countries.

Tonight I want to make a few comments about just one part of WPS, the chapter titled "The
Information at a Central Location". This posted information and the requirement to leave it there
for 30 days which in the most extreme cases can mean 28 days after harvest has nothing to do
with protection and safety, and nothing at all with common sense. It has to do with trust.

Russia, China, and North Korea trust the American farmer to provide food to fend off famine.
Starving children in Africa trust for the ladies and men in The American Agricultural Industry to
supply the daily ration of protein they need to enable them to reach the age of 20. Most
Americans trust that the American farmer keeps the safest and lowest cost food supply coming
just like it  has always been.  But somewhere in the corrupt halls of D.C., where trust  is an
unknown word, there are officials who do not trust the American farmer to act responsible.
Central posting is the brain child of mental midgets at best. Central posting is impractical. It
does not do what it was intended to do.

To discuss details would be  my pleasure but it would take hours just as it would take hours to
read the information which is posted on an average sized farm. Most phone books in local
Eastern Oregon and Washington are smaller than the print out on a mediurn size diversified farm
in the Willamette Valley, Oregon or the Yakima Valley, Washington. By the way, I have yet to
see a central poster at a city  park.

Ladies and gentlemen it is high time that we get common sense back into the system. We have to
trust the American farmer. After all, we all are fed by them every day and we all are Americans.

Therefore I submit my objections to parts of the Worker Protection Standards in writing.

Thank You.
Hermann G. Thoennissen
                                                28/0 'WEST CLEARWATER AVE.
                                                KENNEWICK. WA 99336

                Posting at a Central Location

1.  Whenever any worker employed by the employer is on their agricultural establishment
and a pesticide is about to be applied, certain information must be displayed at a central

      •  The time and space involved in procuring, distributing and maintaining the
         information necessary outrageous.
      •  The workers gain very little benefit from the posting.
      •  Workers are already informed in other ways.
      •  Many of the workers cannot read the information and those who can don't.
      •  The EPA's record keeping requirements conflict with the state's.

Current requirements for worker notification of pesticide applications are adequate
to protect workers and posting at a central location requirements should be

                       Field Posting Signs

Employers must make sure that workers know where pesticides are being applied or
where the reentry periods are still in effect.

      •   Signs must be replaced often due to vandalism, weather, and machine damage.
      •   Keeping track of when and where signs go up and down can be a full time job.
      •   Many employees either ignore or misunderstand the signs.
      •   The EPA and state have different sign designs and sign posting requirements.

Sign posting should be an optional method of notifying workers of pesticide

                 Overall Complexity of Rules

      •   The Compliance manual is 132 pages long.  Who has time to read it.
      •   State and Federal rules already exist which address many to the same safety
      •   Filling out forms does not keep workers safe and informed.
      •   The more complex the rules the less likely they are to be complied with.
      •   Growers are frustrated with the complexity of the safety rules.

Keep the rules which protect the workers but eliminate or rewrite those which don't
work and cause undue hardship on the employers.

            Growers Provide Safe Work Places

       •  Growers care about the health and safety of their workers.
       •  Growers already notify their workers of any hazards.
       •  Growers keep workers out of dangerous areas.

Growers want to keep their workers safe from harm. They do not need complex
rules to help them accomplish this.

                   Educational Scare Tactics

Employers must make sure their workers are trained in general pesticide safety. That
training must include: The hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure,
including acute effects, chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.

       •   The possible dangers of pesticides are over-emphasized.
       •   How safe pesticides are is under-emphasized.
       •   Workers misunderstand what are actual risks and what are only perceived
       •   Workers fear pesticides instead of respecting them.
       •   Pesticides get blamed for illness or injuries in error.
       •   Some workers misuse alleged pesticide illnesses or injuries according to the

Pesticides are safe when used according to the label directions. The risk to field
workers from exposure to pesticides is minimal. Educational materials should
educate workers not scare them and must realistically reflect the minimal risk.

             How to Comply Manual Update
The How to Comply Manual includes detailed in formation on how to comply with the
WPS requirements, including exceptions, restrictions, exemptions, options, and

         There are already new changes to the WPS.
         The HTC manual has not been updated.
         When will the HTC manual be updated?
         How will the grower know when and what changes have occurred to the WPS.
         Are EPA WPS Update Bulletins sufficient? (The last one was issued in
         January of 1995.)

Is the EPA really committed to worker safety? If so they should give growers all the
resources they need to comply with the law. Keeping up with WPS has become a
full time pursuit just to know what the rules are.  Growers are being left behind as
the difficulties increase.

Conflicts and Overlaps Between State and Federal

•  Haz Comm (right-to-know)
•  WSDA pesticide application record keeping requirements
•  L & I Ag Safety Standards
       first aid
•Field Sanitation

   PPE provisions
   REI provisions
 Growers must sort out the regulations from three to five different state and federal
 agencies. Many of these regulations overlap and some actually conflict making it
 impossible for the grower to be in compliance with both. These,types of rules will
 not be taken seriously by growers on the whole.

  WPS and the Hazard Communication Standard

The occupational safety and health standard is intended to comprehensibly address the
following issues: What are the potential hazards of chemicals. How do we inform
workers of those hazards, what are appropriate measures to insure the safety of workers.

       •  WPS and Haz Comm overlap but have many different provisions.
       •  Growers must have MSDS and Labels available.
       •  Growers are left to sort out and interpret the differences between WPS and
         Haz Comm.
       •  Different agencies enforce the rules.

The EPA has been aware of these issues since the inception of WPS but has failed to
address it. Growers are frustrated with the overlap and conflict in the regulations.
This growing frustration with the government's lack of willingness to act leads to
loss of respect for government authority.

Jeanne Heying        ..   • .
Office of Pesticide  Programs'
(7506 C)  U.S. EPfl
401 M Street SW
Washington D. C.   £0460
Washington Stats  has been''.(sinee 1985) doing thru the worker
Right To Know Program  all of what WPS is requiring.

The WPS requirements (in their present form) are expensive
for the farmer  to implement.   " What Washington State has  been
doing since  1985  -has been very adequate.    Most of the WPS
Standard lacks  common sense.    Not much thought of cost was
considered.   It  lacks the experience of someone who has
worked in the Agriculture community.

Washington State  Dept.  of fig. has been a weak partner. .
Trying to use just one person in the field and  not asking
ftNY fig. 'Group for assistance.

Washington State  Dept.  of fig. is using their own training
card and not the  EPft training card.   This causes confusion
for the Farmer  and' .Worker.   The Worker cannot use the
Washington card, irt other states and vice versa.

Wa. State figriculture groups and the Dept. of Labor &
Industries offer  far -more classes and training.

The whole Pesticide issue should be coordinated between State
and Federal  and ONE SET OF REBDLftTIDNS and by ONE .ftBENCY.
                                          2050 10TH N.E
                                         PKGK& 509/884-9614

                       COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
Environmental Protection Agency
Daniel G. Ford
October .11, 1996
N°V 22 J996


       Agricultural workers suffer the highest rate of chemical-related illness of any occupational
group,  according  to  the 'U.S. Bureau  of Labor Statistics.1   The Environmental Protection
Agency estimates that nationally farm workers suffer 20,000 to 300,000 acute illnesses each year
because of exposure to pesticides.2  In  addition to those acute illnesses,  pesticides can cause
chronic illnesses, such as cancer, birth defects, and neurological damage.3

       The full extent of the chronic effects caused by virtually all available pesticides remains
unknown.4 Nonetheless, at least 50 active ingredients are known or suspected carcinogens and
20 are known ^or suspected teratogens.5  Indeed, numerous epidemiological studies have begun
to document tne link between pesticide exposure and cancer.6  For example, one study estimates
that the incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men exposed to a particular herbicide for
more than 20 days per year may be as high as 6 times the incidence rate among those not thus
exposed.7                   .  -

       Washington's workers' compensation data confirms that pesticide-related illness is far too
common among farm workers in our state.  The data shows that for the period of 1987-90, farm
workers had a rate of systemic poisoning that was 3.2 times higher than the rate for workers in
   1    52 Fed.Reg. 16, 050, 16, 059 (1987).

       Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Final Worker Protection Standards, at 21  (1991).

       M. Moses, "Pesticide-Related  Problems and Farm Workers,"  American  Association of
       Occupational Health Nursing Journal 37:116-130 (1989). See also. General Accounting Office,
       Hired Farm Workers:  Health and Well-Beinq At Risk. (1992), at 12.
       The EPA has been reregistering pesticides for nearly 2 decades, but only a fraction of active
       ingredients have been fully evaluated for chronic effects. '.

       See V. Wilk, The Occupational Health of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers in the United
       States at 67-68 (1986).                                  "           "	

       See M. Moses, Cancer in Humans and Potential Occupational and Environmental Exposure to
       Pesticides: Selected Abstract (1988).                      ~         "

       General Accounting  Office,  Pesticides  on  Farms: Limited Capability Exists to Monitor
       Occupational Illnesses and Injuries, at 3 (1993).                          '   ~~

all industries; their toxic disease rate was 2.2 times the norm; their respiratory disease rate was
5 times the norm; the rate for conjunctivitis among farm workers was 2.4 times the norm; and
the rate for dermatitis was 3.9 times the norm.8  (See Attachment A.)

       The Department of Labor and Industries has acknowledged that these figures show only
the  tip  of  the  iceberg because occupational  disease  among farm workers  is  grossly
underreported.9  A  1988 study  of 47 Washington  farm workers who  indicated past health
problems from  pesticide exposure  found  that  only one  person had filed  for workers'
compensation.10  Officials from  various states have informed the General Accounting Office
(GAO) that underreporting results from:  1) workers'  difficulties in recognizing symptoms of
pesticide poisoning,  2) intimidation of workers by employers, 3) lack of access to health care,
'4) lack of health care professionals trained in the diagnosis of pesticide-related illness , and 5)
the  unfamiliarity of  health  care professionals  with reporting requirements  and/or their
unwillingness to  report cases.11

       In 1993, 27 Washigton farm workers  were admitted in hospitals or treated in hospital
emergency rooms because of their exposure to Phosdrin, an extremely toxic insecticide.  (See
Attachment B.)   The Phosdrin poisonings illustrate many of  the problems  with  pesticide
registration,  regulation,  and enforcement in our state.  The  following is an analysis of those
problems and proposed solutions.
 1.  Alternatives to Highly Toxic Pesticides

       A few drops  of a Category 1 pesticide can cause extremely harmful effects.12  Such
 effects include severe acute systemic illness,  blindness,  severe burns and death.13  Several of
 the  Phosdrin -poisonings in Washington State occurred through relatively minor lapses in
 judgment, contact with contaminated personal protective equipment, or no apparent violation of
 the label guidelines.14  Several of the workers were so severely ill that they likely would have
 died without emergency medical treatment.15

       Some other highly toxic pesticides are used much more than Phosdrin.  For example,
    8    Department of Labor and Industries, Farm Worker Health & Safety in Washington State: A
        Look at Workers' Compensation Data, Olympia, WA, at 11 (1991).

    9    id. at 9-10.

    10   K. Gerstle, Symptoms Related to Pesticide Exposure Among Farmworkers in the Skagit Valley

    11   General Accounting Office, supra note 7, at 9, 15.

    12   ]d./ at 3.

    13   See 40 CFR §156.10.

    14   Washington State  University, Washington State Department of Agriculture,  "Safety Alert for
        Mevinphos (Phosdrin) Use in Washington," (August126, 1993).

    15   Testimony of Marion Moses, M.D., before the Washington State Department of Agriculture
        (October 7, 1993)


azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is applied to 90% of Washington's apple crop an average of three
times a year.16  In June,  1993, 55 workers  reported symptoms  including nausea, headaches,
and lightheadedness after an adjacent field was aerially sprayed with a mixture that included
azinphos-methyl.17  The Environmental Protection Agency has put azinphos-methyl on a list
of five "immediate action" pesticides because of its  high toxicity, widespread  usage,  and
involvement in numerous pesticide incidents.18

       Studies have also shown disturbing long-term effects caused by acute poisoning from
Category  1 pesticides.  A study of  100 people poisoned  by organophosphate pesticides an
average of 9 years earlier showed significant deficits in intellectual functioning and motor skills,
as compared  to  a control  group.19   In another study  of 117 individuals  who were  acutely
poisoned, 33 still suffered central nervous system effects, including visual disturbances,  3 years

       In most situations there appear to be  widely accepted alternatives to most  Category 1
pesticides used in labor-intensive crops.  A  survey by  the  Washington Agricultural Statistics
Service shows that most Category 1 pesticides are applied to a minority of the area of the labor-
intensive crops in which they are used, and  some uses  of Category 1 pesticides have already
been withdrawn.  (See Attachment C.) Under industrial hygiene principals, alternative practices
or substances  should be substituted for the most dangerous chemicals.21

        The  EPA should phase out  the most acutely  toxic pesticides.  The agency  should
identify existing  alternatives to  Category 1  pesticides now in use, and ascertain whether there
are critical uses for Category 1 pesticides where no feasible alternatives exist.  Where effective
alternatives exist, Category 1 pesticides should not be allowed.   If there are no  effective
alternatives, substantial  resources should be devoted to  developing alternatives to Category 1
pesticides,  as well as alternatives to pesticides that have been identified as presenting a  risk of
cancer,  reproductive effects, neurological effects, or other chronic damage.

2.  Retaliation for Reporting Pesticide Illness or Violations

       The GAO  reports  that  intimidation  of workers  by  employers  contributes  to  the
underreporting of pesticide illness among farm workers and interferes with the workers' ability
   16  Washington Agricultural Statistics Service, "Washington Agricultural Chemical Usage: Apples"

   17  Department of Health,  "Quarterly  Summary of Pesticide Incidents: Report from 4/1/93 to
       6/30/93" at 36.                                ,

   18  Environmental Protection Agency, Letter to registrants of immediate action pesticides (April 6,

   19  M. Moses, "pesticide-Related Health Problems and Farmworkers,"  AAOHN Journal. 37:115-
       130 (1989) at 125.

   20  E. P. Savage, et al, "Chronic Neurological Sequelae of Organophosphate Pesticide Poisoning,"
       Archives of Environmental Health. 43:38-45 (1988).

   21  See 29 CFR §1910.134(a).

to obtain medical care.22  In this state, farm workers have repeatedly reported that employers
have retaliated against them for seeking treatment for pesticide-related illness,  filing workers
compensation claims concerning pesticide incidents, or reporting pesticide incidents to state
agencies. This retaliation violates the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA)
and the industrial insurance statute.

       As one example, Legal Services represented seven workers who were fired from their
jobs in Okanogan County after the Departments of Agriculture and Labor & Industries began
investigating their poisonings.  The workers were sprayed and drifted upon continuously while
cleaning up brush hi an orchard downwind  from where Thiodan (endosulfan), a  Category 1
organochlorine insecticide,  was  being sprayed.   None of the workers  was provided with
protective clothing required during pesticide application. When one of the workers  told their
employer that they were getting sick from the pesticide, the employer told them to get back to
work in the orchard unless they wanted to  lose their jobs.  The workers returned  to work,
suffered further exposure and became even more ill, experiencing tremors, burning and itching
eyes, blurred vision, severe headaches, vomiting, stomach aches, skin rashes, and disorientation.
The employer later fired the workers after Legal Services asked state agencies to investigate the

       In another case, a Legal Services client was fired after he told the farm manager that a
piece was missing from his respirator.  The manager told the worker not to worry  about the
missing  piece, and the worker continued spraying. The worker then became ill and told the
manager that he  was going  to see a doctor.  The following day, the worker was fired and his
family was  evicted from a house on the orchard property.

       In order to address retaliation, state agencies must promptly and effectively investigate
allegations  of- retaliation, and make these cases a priority for legal action by the Attorney
General's office.  All state workers who investigate worker poisonings should be trained in the
investigation and referral of retaliation cases.  In addition, the state should compile statistics on
retaliation incidents  and the promptness and results of investigations.

3.  Medical Monitoring for Pesticide Handlers

       Since 1974, California has had a program of mandatory blood cholinesterase monitoring
for workers who handle highly toxic pesticides.  Researchers from the California  Department
of Health Services have concluded that the monitoring program is "an important health protective
measure" because it can:  1)  prevent acute illness by  removing asymptomatic workers  with
depressed cholinesterase  levels from further exposure;  2)  trigger reviews of hazardous work
practices before  a major poisoning occurs;  3) increase worker awareness of the toxicity of the
chemicals they handle; 4) prevent chronic sequela of overexposure; and 5) determine when it
is safe for a worker to return to activities that may involve pesticide exposure.23  Monitoring
    22   General Accounting Office, supra note 7, at 15.

    23   R.  Ames  et al, "Protecting Agricultural Applicators from Over-Exposure to Cholinesterase-
        Inhibiting  Pesticides: Perspectives from the California Programme," Journal of Occupational
        Medicine. 39:85-92 at 91 (1989).  See also, R. McConnell et al, "Monitoring Organophosphate
        Insecticide Exposed Workers for Cholinesterase Depression: New Technology for Office or Field
        Use," Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1:34-37 (1992) (Medical monitoring can provide
        significant insights into work site risks and practices, and permit preventative intervention and
        instruction on a timely  basis).


can also help provide better information on the extent of harmful worker exposure to pesticides.

       A California study that followed monitored workers found that 24% of the workers had
to be removed from duty because they had plasma cholinesterase  levels below the allowable
threshold.24   Five workers  were removed  twice  during the same year.   Even with  the
monitoring and removal program, 5 % of the workers suffered symptoms of overexposure to

       The vast majority of the workers who were admitted to hospitals or treated in emergency
rooms for Phosdrin poisoning were pesticide handlers.25   While California requires removing
handlers  from exposure when a worker's red blood cell (RBC) cholinesterase level is depressed
more than 30%, the RBC level of the Phosdrin handlers was depressed as much as 90%. (See
Attachment D.)  The  California program also requires  removal if plasma cholinesterase is
depressed more than 40%.  The plasma  levels for the Washington Phosdrin handlers were
depressed as much as 97%.  Without proper treatment, these workers could have died.26  They
clearly should have been removed from exposure before their cholinesterase levels were so
severely  depressed.

       Washington's only cholinesterase monitoring program is a  "non-mandatory" program
promulgated  by the Department of  Labor and  Industries  last year.27   The experience  in
California and Washington demonstrates that a mandatory monitoring program  is needed  to
remove pesticide handlers  from  hazardous levels of exposure before their health is seriously

4. Closed Systems for Mixing  and Loading Pesticides

       Because workers who mix and load pesticides handle concentrated formulations,  they
face a high degree  of risk.  According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation,
"Hand pouring has. been found to be  the most hazardous activity involved in the handling of
highly toxic pesticides."28  Ten  of the Washington workers sent to  the hospital in 1993 for
Phosdrin poisoning were involved in mixing and loading activities.29

         Since 1977, California has required that Category 1 pesticides, such as Phosdrin, be
mixed and loaded through closed systems that limit the  spilling,  splashing, and leaking of
pesticides onto workers.  (See Attachment E.)  A report by the California Department of Food
and Agriculture shows that in the ten years after closed systems were required in that  state,
Category 1 mixer/loader injuries dropped to about one-fifth of their previous level (from 75
   24  C. M. Fillmore & J. E. Lessenger, "A Cholinesterase Testing Program for Pesticide Applicators,"
       Journal of Occupational Medicine. 35:1 (1993) at 63.

   25  Washington State Department of Health, "Phosdrin Cases as of 10/5/93."

   26  M. Moses, M.D., Testimony before the Washington State Department of Agriculture (10/7/93).

   27  See WAC 296-306-40011.

   28  R. Rutz & D. Gibbons, Pesticide Safety Information: Closed Systems. California Department of
       Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA (1991).

   29  See Attachment B.


injuries/year to 16  injuries/year).30   (See Attachment  F.)   The  California Department  of
Pesticide Regulation states that proper use of a closed system reduces the potential for human
exposure between 10 and 100 times.31

       Because mixer/loader incidents are likely to be serious due to the concentrations of the
chemicals involved, Washington workers should be protected by closed systems, particularly for
Category 1 pesticides.

5.  Certification of Handlers of Highly Toxic Pesticides

       Under current state law, workers may mix, load and apply the  most toxic pesticides
without certification or licensing. The Department of Agriculture requires that persons who use
or apply  "restricted use" pesticides be certified or under  the "direct supervision" of a certified
applicator.32  But the Department's policy has been to define  "direct supervision"  as having a
certified applicator available anywhere within 5  minutes  travel time on the farm.  This policy
allows farms to employ uncertified mixer/loaders and applicators to work in isolation without
necessary advice and, when necessary, emergency assistance from certified applicators.

       The current requirements do not adequately protect workers who handle highly toxic
pesticides.  The investigations of the Phosdrin incidents showed that many of the workers who
handled this pesticide were not properly trained or  informed of its hazards.  State certification
should be required for mixing, loading or applying Category 1 and  2 pesticides.

6.     Enforcement of Pesticide  Regulations

       If agricultural employers are to follow established pesticide laws and regulations, there
must be serious, concerted enforcement and education efforts.  Enforcement efforts must include
more periodic inspections of agricultural work places. The inspection process should not depend
upon complaints from workers who are afraid of losing their jobs. There must be effective
penalties for seious pesticide violations.
    30  R. Rutz, Closed System Acceptance and Use in California, California Department of Food and
       Agriculture, Worker Health and Safety Branch, HS-1393 (1987).

    31  Rutz & Gibbons, supra note 29.

    32  See WAG 16-228-164.


       Percent Distribution of WA State Fund Workers' Compensation Claims
                               1987-90 — Illness Claims
      Nature of
      Illness or
All Farm
ratio  ratio
1*'        2*
contact dermatitis
dermatitis '
allergic dermatitis
conjunctivitis .
eye disease
systemic poisoning
respiratory condition and
upper resp.
hearing loss
.06 '
B (%)
-19 •
.18 -
*Rado 1 refers to the percentage of claims for all farm workers divided by the percentage of claims for
workers in all industries (column B divided by column A). Ratio 2 refers to the percentage of claims for all
farm workers in orchards divided by the percentage of claims for workers in all industries (column C divided
by column A)
                                        ATTACHMENT  A




fiuipuy HOO

oojnos Suii-iodoy

.dao 3MO ,ujeBId %
•jdoa HIJOV oaa %
<-OM 3dd
qj89jg jo sssujjoiis
.ejsii Auunj.
u|Bd (suiujopqv
eouvq-ims.a |Bns!A
luap]OU| JO 9)8Q


•^ itivMffrrfffttffi"





































' C5



































f >



r headache








r vomiting








r nausea














vait records













f 1












T nausea







table to contact





«• dehydration







vait records


•* !

cc ;
UJ •

x '


X 1

x ;

                 USE Off   \TEGQRY I  PESTICIDES IN^  \JOR
, . ' ' Insecticides
i Azinphos-methyl
! Endosulfan
* Ethyl parathion
Fprmetanate hydrochloride
. Methyl parathion
Percent of
Crop Area -Applied
Number of
. . 1.1
Total Applied :
(1000's ofjbs.):
•• s t
.1- , * /','
& f f <
Fungicides <-..
:j Dodine
Percent 'of
Crop Area Applied .:.
Number of
Total Applied
(1000's of lbs,).:.
i^V^s^ ' ,\, ' , , - ,;-lf/,f-
< \"-^;; -
* Ethyl parathion
', - ^rPercehtCof'/
''' " r* ' ' A'-" f fT ,'' J " '
.ivCrop.ATefi -Applied -
,. plumber] p,f
Total Applied ,
(1Qo6;s,of fbs.J ,
    ,         -
i : > *""*- '
InS^ciJGlqils..; , :
,*.s.. •-,>&<« /^.-Jft/STSSSfaf.'. . .;
*EthyI parathion
Methyl parathion
. Percent .;o.f
G:rp:p;. Area Applied
iJJurtib.er oil
"Total -Applied
{1,0,66V of fbs.)
"-T,- t< •' ' • '^v*^ V ^5,« #• ••
: '- ',*^x ••
:;, -?;vi.- -FungJ6ldes -> v -
Basic copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
^••-, • :?. • •
3 .
Number of
Total Applied
(1000's of Ibs,.}
t-> A " •£*•*** ^ * S *
^ 'lfl%^ ffA$y$ ^ f"
v, ''^^fnse'cttcVes^^" >
* Ethyl parathion
> , Percent of
Crop Areas Applied
Number of
Total Applied
(1000's of Ibs.)
" V - , * **# (' '**"**'
t t. ^ Jf tVJ&fJ* f&v***" < > ••
„ '- ,~ — Y-ii&I**-*;'^'"* y*( ' <
^^rtH^^msectpiidgs^^ ^ ,
*Ethyl parathion
> * 'x /- /•
Percent of
s -Crop Area Applied
. 8
Number of
Total Applied
{ 1000's of IbsJ
      No longer permitted or registration withdrawn.
Sources:    Washington Agricultural Statistics Service, "Washington Agricultural Chemical Usage";
            Extension Services of Oregon State University,  Washington  State University and
            University of Idaho, 1993 Pacific Northwest Insect Control Handbook: Washington
            State University, 1993 Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington.
                                   ATTACHMENT C  (CONT)

 9   $
 I  2*
~  O
»  o
x  o
•   rr
:   §
K)  b
o  <->
v^  l-r

^  &
CJ  <

cn  C
\o  c
tn  ».









                      d  .
                                                                           VO •

                                                      ATTACHMENT  D

to spray boom
                                                  Throltle Valve (if necessary)
                                     Figure 2
                             ILLUSTRATION  OF
                             CLOSED  SYSTEM FOR
                             MIXING  AND LOADING .
                             ATTACHMENT E

                   TABLE I—Pcstlcid< mlxcrlloadrr illnesses in California.
                       Toxicity Category 1
' .89
: 62
53 •
47 '
 •' Information obtained through Doctor's First Reports of Occupational Injury. Pcsiicidc Illness Re-
3ns. and follow-up pesticide, illness investigations.
 * Data include only liquid Category 1; prior years include all formulations.
  This minimum number was extrapolated from other data.
                                                   ATTACHMENT  F


       Approximately 4  million migrant  farmworkers provide
       multibillion dollar agricultural industry, contributing to the.
       majority of them (88 percent) are legally authorized to work
       percent are U.S, citizens, 15 percent are legal residents and 33 per
       work Even with citizenship and legal status, their health often
       in Third World Countries. Limited by poverty, frequent mobility, low literacy, language
       and cultural barriers, inadequate transportation, and geographic isolation, less than 15
       percent  of these farmworkers and their dependents have ready access to health care
       Migrant farmworkers confront greater risks  and suffer more health problems than the
       general population.  Working  and living in unsanitary  conditions makes them more
       .vulnerable to conditions such as tuberculosis (TB)  and parasitic  infection.  They are
       subject to more accidents, pesticide and chemical exposure, dental  disease, malnutrition
       mental  health, and  substance abuse problems than any other- subpopulation in the

       The farmworker's  health condition is a risk at work, where he lives and the general
       environment where they spend their entire lives. Pesticide exposure of the farmworkers
       may result in acute systemic poisoning or skin  or  eye  problems  such as rashes,
       inflammation, or corneal ulceration.  Chronic health problems may  include chronic
       dermatitis,  fatigue,  headaches,  sleep  disturbances,  anxiety, and disturbances  of
       concentration and memory disorders, and.abnormalities in liver and kidney functions.'
       Pesticide is a generic term that covers a wide range of compounds  used in. pest control:
       Insecticides (anthropods), fungicides (smut, blight, mildew, etc.),  Rodenticides ( rate,
       gophers, rabbits, etc.), Herbicides  (weeds);  Acaracides (mites), >Algicides (algse hi
       swamps, ponds, marshes, etc.), piscidcides (fish), avicides (birds), Molluscides (slugs,
       snails), nematocides (worms), and rumigants. The Federal Insecticide, Fimgocode. and
       Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 calls pesticides "economic poisons" and defines them
       as any substance intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects;
       rodents, nematodes, fungi or weeds or any other form of life declared to be pests...; and
       any  substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or
       dessicant (Moses, 1983).

       Each year the United States uses about one billion pounds of pesticide domestically and
       manufactures at least 800 million more pounds for export. Currently in this country, more
       than  1,500 active pesticide ingredients are formulated to  make more  than. 45,000
       registered products (Coye, 1985).
4154 California Ave. S.W. • Seattle, Washington 98116-4102 • (206) 932-2133 • FAX: (206) 932-6441.* E-Mail: nwrpca@wolfe.net

Pesticides are aborbed into the human  body through the skin (dermal), via the lungs
(inhalation),  and by mouth (ingestation).  Field laborers are exposed to pesticides in a
variety  of ways:

(1) Direct spraying of farmworkers in a field through aerial or ground application

(2) By Drift, for example, pesticides that are sprayed on one field are carried by the wind
to adjacent fields where workers live and work;                             .

(3) Coming in contact with pesticide residues on plant leaves (e.g. via exposed hands,
arms, face, and neck):                -
(4) Eating in the fields using pesticide-contaminated hands;

(5)  Eating the fruits or vegetables that are being harvested without washing them to
remove pesticide residues;

(6) When cups are not available, drinking water out of  hollowed-out cucumbers, bell
peppers, apples, etc., all of which have been treated with pesticides.

(7) smoking without washing hands to remove pesticide residues.

(8)  Drinking, bathing, or cooking with water contaminated by pesticides  (e.g., water
from irrigation ditches);

(9) Contaminating the genital area after elimination due to inability to wash hands ( no
clean water and soap available);

(10) Using pesticide-corrtammated leaves or twigs in the field as a substitute for toilet

Another factor to consider when  measuring the extent of farmworkers*  pesticide
exposure in the proximity of their housing to the fields; for example, a labor camp may
regularly be contaminated by pesticide drift from adjacent fields as they  are sprayed.
Exposure is even greater for those workers who are without housing of any kind, who
actually live in the orchards where they pick the fruits.

Our recommendations therefore are that:

EPA finalize the implementation of the Worker Protection  Standards in collaboration
with the states.

That this joint collaborative partnership institute a comprehensive pesticide education
program about the effects of exposure to pesticides.

That this partnership include strong language on labeling of dangers for contamination
by chemicals.

That proper protective clothing be worn to reduce the danger of exposure to pesticides.

All Chemicals should be properly labeled in both English and Spanish.

Provisions must insure that housing conditions are tree from pesticides and located away
from/adjacent to sprayed  fields  to prevent/reduce worker and dependents from  drift

This  partnership must monitor adherence  to implemented regulations and where
violations occur appropriate corrective action be taken.

             Washington state Farm Bureau Testimony
                      EPA Public WPS meeting
                             Pasco/  WA
                           June 19,  1996

 My name  is  Burt Chestnut and I am the Safety Director for the
 Washington  State Farm Bureau. I am here to testify on. behalf of
 the farmers and ranchers we represent.  •

 Today, family'farmers and ranchers face a maze.of regulations,
 whether  it  be  hundreds  of pages of WPS  regulations,  WISHA
 requirements,  State Department of Health requirements or the
 State  Department of Ecology's environmental rules.   Some of these
 requirements not only overlap they often contradict each other.
 Combine  this with' the fact that very few of them are easy to read
 and comprehend/  let alone implement on  the ground and you can see
 why farmers have a real problem trying  to-comply.

 It's not that  farmers don't want to provide a safe working place
 because  the farmers and ranchers who participate' in Farm Bureau's
 Retro/Safety program have an excellent  safety record.  Our family
 farmers  work hard to provide a safe workplace because we depend
 on our workers to help  us bring in the  crops.   Not to mention the
 fact that often family  members are.working'right along side with
 our workers.  The problem is that too often worker protection
 standards are  written without real world,  on the farm experience,
 and the  end result is often very costly or completely.unworkable.

 In Washington  the State Department of Labor and Industries worked
 very closely with the agriculture community in formulating new AG
 Safety standards.  These new standards  have been written in user
 friendly language which makes it far easier for the worker and
 the employer to read, understand and implement.  While this has
 not been an easy process,  we believe that the final•product will
 result in even better-safety protection on our farms.'

 Farm Bureau commends you for reaching out to farmers and asking
'for their insight/ concerns and ideas on implementation of the
 Worker Protection Standards. We believe, that 'if EPA.were-to take
 the same approach-as our Department of  Labor and Industries and
 rewrite  a simplified version of the current regulation it would
 work much better.  .If farmers and farmworkers clearly understand
 the practices  they need to protect themselves from pesticides
 then they will be far more likely to actually use those
 practices.'                           •

 1 work on the  ground every day and I can tell you that the
 current  WPS requirements are very expensive .for the family .farmer
 to implement.  Providing-,decontamination kits for 30 days, for all
 pesticides  and restricted, entry intervals, are two that come to
 mind.. The  supplies required to outfit  a single.worker can run
 upwards  of  several hundred dollars •. This is especially costly
 when our members have.several orchard^  scattered over large areas
 of territory,  many of which are being -worked simultaneously.
  10U 10th Avenue S.E. • P.O. Box 2009 • Qlympia, Washington 98507 • (36*0) 357-9975

I understand that your goal in proposing to shorten the time that
decontamination sites are required after the use of four-hour REI
products is to encourage farmers to use low-toxi.city. pesticides.
One way to ensure this is a zero day decontamination requirement
for four-hour REI products.  Currently you require
decontamination kits be available for 30 days for all pesticides
and this simply means that the farmer will choose the pesticide
which is most cost effective.  But if EPA were to revise the
decontamination requirement to zero days for pesticides with
four-hour REI's this would provide a great incentive to farmers
to use those lower risk products.  The-farmer will balance the
cost of not using 4 hour REI products and providing contamination
kits for 30 days with using the low-toxicity pesticides and not
having to provide the kits.  Suddenly using the low-toxicity
pesticides is much more cost effective and makes sense.  We urge
you to revise your decontamination requirements • to zero days for
four-hour REI products.

The Washington' State Department of Agriculture {WSDA) is the
regulatory partner which provides assistance.  Unfortunately the
Washington State Department of Agriculture has only, one person in
the field. This makes it extremely difficult to provide
assistance in a state the size of Washington.  Currently the WA
Department of Agriculture also utilizes their own training card
instead of the EPA training card.  In many instances this has
caused confusion, especially for those workers who have worked in.
other states.  it would be extremely helpful if EPA would require
WSDA to utilize the EPA,training card  for consistency.

We would also like to see the Agency shift its focus on helping
to educate fanners and  farmworkers and assist them to bring their
farms into compliance without leveling fines the first time.
This would be  especially helpful if a  farmer doesn't have-a
history of non-compliance.   Save the fines for those who just
refuse to comply. The Department of Labor and Industries and
agriculture  groups across'the state offer many classes and safety
training for our workers  and we would welcome the additional help
in this arena.

Farmers remember  a time when Government was  there to be helpful
and willingly provided  assistance/ a time when farmers looked
forward to working together  with.government  employees  towards  the
same  goals.'  Instead today we have farmers which  are frustrated
and believe  that  government  only  stops by to raise revenues
through fines.  We believe that  good .solid incentives will help
EPA and farmers reach their  goal  of  a  safe workplace.

The Washington State. Farm Bureau offers  a suggestion which we
believe would benefit everyone,  and  that would be  to eliminate
 the overlap of regulatory agencies1 in  the pesticide  arena.  It  is
 time  to  eliminate turf battles  and have  one  agency  administer
 pesticides  with one set of user friendly rules,  common sense

                                 WASHINGTON STOTE
                                 NURSERY &
June 24, 1996

Ms. Jeanne Keying
Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Jeanne:

As the chair of the Washington State Nursery and Landscapers Association Pest
Management Committee I would like to take this opportunity to comment on our
organizations' successes and struggles with the Worker Protection Standards.

For the most part, our members were well aware of, and carefully practiced, our own
states' laws regarding pesticide usage and worker safety. When the Federal Governments'
E.P.A. imposed then" own law on top of our states laws many were left confused  as to
which agencies laws to follow and how to comply to often conflicting regulations. As we
became more familiar with the E.P.A. laws and began implementing them in our
businesses we searched to find adequate training material that would be meaningful to
workers in our industry. Much training material is written for large scale agriculture and
not for the ornamental nursery, landscaper or greenhouse grower. Smaller growers were
definitely impacted by the monetary costs of purchasing training material and the time-
costs involved in implementing the standards.

Today there still exists policies in the law that we feel need improvement. The following
is a summary:

      a) There needs to be greater flexibility in the size of the required posting signs to
      meet our growing conditions, be it a greenhouse bench, a customers backyard or a
      production field.

      b) REI's need to be reasonably set with better allowance for non contact re-entry
      and inspection requirements.

      c) Sign requirements should be in the language of the worker, not just English and
                 P O BOX b/O " SUMMER. WA 98390-0670 • (206) 663-4482

Ms. Jeanne Keying
June 24,1996
Page - 2
       d) Further agreement on State requirements vs. E.P. A. requirements on matters
       such as posting and record keeping.

We have for the most part found the "regulatory partner", the Washington State
Department of Agriculture, to be helpful in our understanding of this new set of laws.  The
first year of their inspections for our compliance was more as an advisor.  When they
begin finning members for non-compliance to minute details to this law we may form
another opinion.

In summary, the WSNLA recognizes the need for a standardized protection of our
agricultural employees we just seek the understanding that some flexibility should be
allowed when protecting workers in a nursery and landscapers setting.

Washington State Nursery and Landscapers Assoc. Pest Management Chair
cc: Alan Welch, Region 10 E.P.A.

Published by Washington State Potato Commission • 108 East Interlake Rd. • Moses Lake, Washington 98837 • (509) 765-8845
 June 10, 1996
 Hemy C. Michael, President & CEO

. Sam Thornton, Assistant Administrator

 Jeanne Heying
 Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C)
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 401M Street S,W.
 Washington D.C. 20460

 Dear Ms. Heying,              .

 Herein are  contained some key comments and  suggestions for the Worker
 Protection Standards hearing on June 19th at the Red Lion in Pasco, Wa.

 !•      Respirator Testing Criteria. NIOSH's testing criteria for respirators is
 based  on old mining standards and stifles innovation.  Agriculture and forestry
 need light-weight, battery operated,  inexpensive hood or helmet type powered
 air respirators.  Can EPA dedicate some research funds to develop this type of
 safety equipment?

2-      Posting at a  Central Location. -This has been the most cumbersome
WPS requirement.  It has proven to have little benefit in informing workers of
their risk of exposure in agriculture and forestry settings (No clear definition of
what is a central  location).  Current Worker and  Community Right-to-Know
laws are more effective.                                          .

?•      Application Record Keeping.   The  states also require  application
record keeping. The state and federal standards are inconsistent and mandate
two  separate record keeping systems.

4-      Posting of Field Signs. Once again the Federal and State standards  are
inconsistent.  In  addition, there are  currently differences between three state
agency requirements (WSDA, L&I and DNR).
               District Nn )
               Rick Miller

               Dan Elmore

              • District No. 1
               Jim Reimann

               Ron Stetner

              District No. 3
              Milton "Bud" Mercer Jr.

              Kevin Bouchey

              District Nn. 4
              Edward Schneider

              Ron Reimann
              Pasco*    "

              District No. 5
              Gerald Nelson

              At Larpe

              Patrick Connors

              Lynn Olsen

              Phil Schoening

              Vice Chairman'
              Allen Olberding
                                                                                        Director of Agriculture
                                                                                        Jim Jesernig

June 10,1996
Page 2
5.     Complexity of the Rules.  WPS.is an overly complex set of rules.
Many WPS requirements are costly, time consuming and do little to protect
workers.                               .

6.     Poor Risk Communications.  WPS training materials overemphasize .
the dangers of and exposure to pesticides when proper mixing, loading, storing
and handling techniques are utilized. The proper use of  PPE can eliminate- a
majority of the exposures and risks to employee health.

7.     Inadequate Training Materials.  Some industries covered by WPS
have no training materials relevant to the work environment. As an example, the
forest industry in the Pacific Northwest  has had to use training videos and
materials prepared for the agricultural workplace.  These have proven inadequate
in providing employers an opportunity to comply with WPS. 'There is also a
lack of funding available for training.

Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.

                             Sam Thornton/
                             Assistant Admmistrator
Senator Slade Gorton
Senator Patty Murray  .
Congressman Doc Hastings
Congressman George Nethercutt

                             FUU.ER-QUIQQ BUILDING
                             POST OFFICE BOX 2207

                       WENATCHEE. WASHINGTON 98807-2207
                       (509) 662-6181  FAX (509) 664-667O
June 18,  1996
Jean Haying
Office of Pesticide Programs  (7506C) , US  EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Leo Sax /Manager
WA. Growers Clearing House
PO Box 2207
Wenatchee, WA 98807-2207

EPA  Worker Protection  Standard  -  comments  submitted
public meeting; Pasco, Washington, June 19, 1996.
The Washington Growers Clearing House represents over 2700 fruit growers
in the state.  .Our grower members  are subject to many complex regulations
involving application of pesticides.  We recognize  that some regulation
is necessary to protect  workers  exposed ;to pesticides on the  job.
       /                •                 '
The following are concerns that our members 'have expressed, in  regard to
the current  EPA Worker.Protection Standard.    Most  of  these concerns
relate to requirements that are costly,, .unnecessary paperwork, and have
nothing to do with the safety  of our employees.

1 • •. Posting, of information at  a  central  location.  The employer is
required  to' disclose  on  a bulletin,  board  information  on  pesticide
application.   The list must include location and description of area to
be treated; product name; EPA Registration number; and active ingredients
of the pesticide; time and date  pesticide applied and restricted entry
interval. When growers do post  -this information and inform workers where
it is located and  allow access, they find that  employees do not take the
time  to  read the displayed  information.    We  ask that  this specific
posting- requirement be delated from the .EPA Worker Protection Standard
since' it doesn't relate  to  employee safety.

2-  We need continued communication between federal and state agencies
on the EPA'Worker Protection Standards.  One problem that could have been
averted,  with better communication, is the lack of a uniform WPS Training
Card.  The state card is green and federal EPA is blue. The second issue
relates to the posted warning signs  for pesticide application.   The state
signs .are different  than the  federal  and  at  this, time  are  not being
accepted by EPA to meet this requirement.  Federal EPA should accept the
state  signs.   This  is. because  many of  the  EPA  Standards,   including
posting,  have'been in  place in our state under "Worker Right to Know"
since 1985.

3.  To my knowledge, EPA has not  made it clear  that  in certain  emergency
situations, workers may enter application areas before  the  four hour
waiting period.   Such, an emergency could be'a fire, flood or weather
related incident  that  couldn't wait  for the  state to  declare that an
emergency exists.


                                                       it  "*,™t»* r IT
*.  ,,
                                                            ifJ rw   ji r
                  *!      "*       UN
                                                             f *l     If  fi # 1!      M
                                                      I    t  IB D  1 IL  I*    (I1 li  I L       t

                                                       <%  "g f fWf f  "T m ^v Tl ff       I
     T W    i t«        h               JriiH1|lk4J'lll*l«    IP   IJiNJ I  »ffl ftflJCAJH  NP  t

  H  Mil It i Iklil LlLl Mil t» if I HI i*  1 P ( fill f TI    14* HlfllPW I i^ttiuHiSillllllii lllUililMIIILiMllHHIi H "I ItH I      HI
              ** f »  r v  *  ;
                                                          r  *
                                           ,  H  I  (  u1  wAH  i'J»l  ki'jil  »,n   '
                                        t    «K  J« Hiff
     i      ^  H          Uk     11        H* *i  f  I    HL ' l
                                                                                "W H '
                                                          a,,    .y..  ,  . fi s. .
                                                i    I  1 I  n    t  T IU I   f   I 11
                                          H   I  I  i*f"  II  I    HI »ll «  1 f < «
 T K  i        11    W- 1
                                                                                           iTir muviiHi. _•
                                                                                            tl  IF  F


6.   Pennsylvania
       Public Meeting:

          Biglerville, PA
          •   June 26, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •   118 participants (54 registered), including 26 speakers

       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions:
          Cooperative Extension Service, Pennsylvania State University Agriculture Department,
          Biglerville, PA
          •   June 27, 1996, 8:00 a.m.
          •   EPA staff met with Bill Kleiner and other state officials on agriculture in Adams County, PA.

          Hollabaugh Brothers Inc. Fruit Farm & Market, Biglerville, PA
          •   June 27, 1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •   EPA staff toured the 300-acre fruit farm and met with Brad Hollabaugh, owner.

          Ashcombe Vegetable Farm & Greenhouse, Mechanicsburg, PA
          •   June 27,1996,1:00 p.m.
          •   EPA and state staff toured the 90-acre farm and met with Mr. Ashcombe, owner.

          Meeting with Farmworkers and Key Stone Health Care, Biglerville, PA
          •   June 27, 1996, 7:30 p.m.
          •   EPA and state staff met with 10 farmworkers and two health care workers.
                                                                      Pennsylvania  147

Transcript of Public Meeting
Biglerville, Pennsylvania
June 26, 1996
              David Bingaman:   I'd like to welcome
           everyone here tonight. I see a lot of folks
           have come from a great distance within our
           state and I see a lot of people  that have
           traveled from other states. I appreciate you
           all coming.  I see a wide representation of
           growers, workers, and industry representatives
           from agriculture  in general.  I think it is
           encouraging to see people here and I think
           that, due to busy work schedules, we're going
           to see some additional people certainly over
              I'm not going to have a whole lot to say
           tonight. I basically want to give some credit
           to people who  have worked in  Worker
           Protection within the various states in just a
           minute or two.   First of all, I'd like to
           recognize  our  translator  (Jose  Sanchez)
           tonight who will handle any translations that
           are necessary.   Russ  Bowen will  be our
           facilitator tonight  Wayne Casto, the pesticide
           contact from West Virginia, is here tonight
           representing  his  state. Don  Delorme,  the
           WPS  contact in Virginia,  is also present.
           Alvin Harris from Washington, DC, is present
           tonight.  From the State of Pennsylvania
           Pesticide Education Office, Kerry Hoffman,
           William Kleiner, and  Scott Harrison.  Not
           mentioned  here,  but from the  Pesticide
           Education Office in Maryland, Susan Gardner
           is somewhere in the crowd (I got to speak to
           her  earlier).   And  from  the  State  of
Pennsylvania, our local inspection staff is well
represented with David Scott, Abbie Clark,
Phil Phitzer, Roger Dressier, and myself.  In
addition, Joe Uram, our Pesticide Enforce-
ment Officer is also available. From Region 3,
we  have  Magda  Rodriguez-Hunt,  WPS
Coordinator for the region present, along
with Don Lott, Tom Maslany, Director of
AR&T, Stan Laskowski,  Deputy Regional
Administrator. And now from headquarters
EPA,  we  have  Ameesha Mehta, Delta
Figueroa, Michael Walsh, Cathy Kronopolus,
Kevin  Keaney,  and  Associate  Assistant
Administrator James Aidala.  James will be
making comments following my comments—
which are ending right now.

   James Aidala: Thank you, Dave.  I'm Jim
Aidala   from   EPA   headquarters   in
Washington-that part of EPA that handles
pesticide programs  as well as a few  other
things; and so the Worker Protection program
falls under our responsibilities. I'd just like to
welcome everybody here tonight.  This is
really a large turnout. We're trying to have a
series of public meetings across the country
(altogether around 10) representing various
parts   of  the  country,  various  kinds  of
agriculture, to learn more about the standard--
how it's going, where it's been, where we need
to go.  And again, we're just really glad to see
a large turnout.  You all know that the rule is
148  Pennsylvania

designed  to  try  to  provide  the  basic
protection for agriculture -workers in various
ways  by trying to inform people about the
hazards of pesticides and by adjusting the
exposure  they have to potential  kinds  of
materials  [Inaudible]...You  can say  at this
point that it is a very high  priority for the
Agency and for the Administration in general.
This  is important not just because  it is
designed to protect 3.5 million agricultural
•workers, but because it is something that has
been underway at EPA for 20 years.
    Public meetings like this are designed to
try and  learn more  about how  to  begin
working hand-in-hand with people and how
we need to be different about it. Obviously,
some of the changes that we made since the
standard  came  out include reducing  the
number of days  of [Inaudible]...have basic
training  [Inaudible]... and entering treated
areas  to perform  certain contact activity.
Today, for example, there's  a fact sheet on the
front table we just published  for making final
changes to the warning sign  requirements to
allow languages,  any  non-English second
languages, whereby the worker has a better
opportunity to see the sign. And, also, we
amended the decontamination requirements
so  that the  decontamination supplies need
only be available  for workers for seven days
after the expiration of the re-entry interval of
low-toxicity pesticides.  Again, these are all
part of ongoing activities to try to change the
rules to have them make more sense. We're
still continuing to make amendments to the
    Again, I would just like to say one more
thing before I   close.   That  is  the  very
important role of the states.  We have been
blessed in having states  like Pennsylvania
around to help us implement the rules. Under
the federal pesticide laws, the states are to be
the enforcement agencies; and, without their
cooperation, without their partnership,  not
just this rule but the entire pesticide worker
standard wouldn't work. So we're happy not
just to be in Pennsylvania, but in different
parts  of the  region and  this is  absolutely
essential to making this rule work. This part
of  the  world   is   represented   by  our
Philadelphia office, where Stan is our Deputy
Regional Administrator.
    Stan Laskowski:  I am Deputy Regional
Administrator of EPA  of Region 3 of the
middle  Atlantic  states.    This  program
[Inaudible].... I only  have  about  an  hour of
remarks—just kidding!  I wanted to tell  you
that it is really very appropriate to have  you
here tonight to work with you and to have
you tell us just how effective  our standards
really are.  As Jim indicated,  the states are
really the key to what we do.  And I  just
wanted to mention a few of the key activities
of the states in our region:  [Inaudible]...labor,
the Cooperative  Extension Service,  who are
our state  partners  in implementing  the
Worker    Protection    Standard     and
[Inaudible]...dealing  with  the  agricultural
community.  One example of what they do is
to provide assistance for inspections, as well
as  outreach  and  training   opportunities.
Pennsylvania is one of the leaders in that area.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture, and
two of their services, for example, developed
brochures  that explain such  topics as  the
                                                                    Pennsylvania  149

          volunteer training verification  program, as
          well as the rights of workers.  Our West
          Virginia  Cooperative  Extension  Service
          developed a training video for workers  and
          employers and some of it was provided by the
          West Virginia Department of Agriculture.
          Some  of our state  partners have   also
          interfaced  with  health  organizations  to
          educate health care providers about pesticides.
          The  Virginia  Department of Agriculture
          entered into an agreement with the Virginia
          Department of Health.  Another example is
          the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
          which established an agro-medicine program
          with the College of Medicine at Pennsylvania
          State   University  and   the  College   of
          Agricultural Science. The fundamental aspect
          of this kind  of medicine is that  it is
          comprehensive to agricultural safety issues.
          These are just a few examples of what we see
          that the states are doing and, with that, I think
          I'll turn it over to Russ.

              Russ Bowen: Good evening. My name is
          Russ and  I'm with  the EPA  Region 3 in
          Philadelphia.  I'll be facilitating the meeting
          tonight and...  [Inaudible]...so if you have any
          specific questions  [Inaudible]...we'll take a
          break about 8:30.  Each speaker is registered
          and will be given five minutes to speak. At
          four minutes I'll stand up and at five minutes
          I'll sit back down.  At six  minutes,  I'll press
          this button and a trap door opens. [Laughter]
          So, if you  have any questions, please  stay
           through the break. If you decide during the
           course of the meeting that you would like to
           speak, please go out to the lobby, sign up, get
           a number, and you'll be added to the list.  You
will be given an opportunity to speak. And
with that, I'd  like to call Brian  Shrader of
Harper's Ferry Job Corp.

   Brian Shrader:  Good evening, my name's
Brian Shrader with the Harpers Ferry Job
Corps in Harpers Ferry, WV.  Since 1993,
•we've trained almost 240 students—about 80 a
year—in the safe handling and application of
pesticides,   herbicides,  insecticides.   My
students have learned  to  be  very  self-
conscious, safety  conscious and responsible
with what  they learned.   They take it very
seriously.  Their personal protection equip-
ment is always kept  up  to standards.  They
know that when they leave the shop to spray,
anywhere on the  center, they better have it
right. They only get one chance at it. They
inform other students if areas are posted, they
need to stay out of there.  They have stopped
staff  from violating federal  regulations.
Everybody  at  our  center would  be  very
pleased with  the help  the  West  Virginia
Department of Agriculture has given us. We
could not  ask for a better coordinator as
Wayne   Casto  or  Bob  Frame   out  of
Charleston. Thank you all.

   Wayne Casto: [Inaudible]...for the State of
West  Virginia  with  the  West  Virginia
Department of Agriculture.  I would like to
thank EPA for providing this forum for both
myself and the other people that I have with
me from the State of West Virginia to present
these comments  on the Worker Protection
Standards.  Those people from West Virginia
that we have attending here tonight represent
a cross-segment of the agricultural industry.
150  Pennsylvania

The first one I would like to thank personally
is Jamie Wilburn, he's a crew leader and also
a handler; Brian  Shrader,  he is  the  IPM
supervisor and ag instructor with the U.S.
Department of Interior; Phil and Matthew
Lowe  from Potomac Farms Nursery and
greenhouse operation in Shepardstown; Mr.
Gary Lutman, who is the vice president of
Mountainview Orchards; and also  Robert
Cheves, he's with the West Virginia University
Extension   Service  and   he's   also  the
Hampshire County Extension Agent.
    I would like   to thank you  again for
allowing me to state or address some of the
concerns that have been expressed to me by
our growers and also some of our agribusiness
communities.  There is some concern from
our growers about the issue of liability of the
trainer, if a trainee or  a worker has been
involved in  alleged pesticide injury after he
has left their  facility.  Number two, the
verification of workers who you have really
trained or not trained.  An example is that
one of our workers was trained three times at
three different locations, with the same Social
Security number, home address, but different
    There is  some confusion about REIs
•when  it comes to various levels of intensity
and toxicity. Strawberries, one particular one
is Captan, would have a 24-hour REI, apples
a 96-hour REI, with a pre-harvest interval of
no hours. There is some confusion when it
 comes to protection.   Some of the other
 things that they were concerned about was
 they felt that a lot of times decisions were
 made  by EPA and other government agencies
without really connecting with the people in
 the field. They would like to see more people
 from EPA region coming to their locations,
 traveling with them and experiencing their
 problems and gaining experience in real-life
 situations. The growers in West Virginia are
 doing an excellent job  of  complying with
 WPS.  They  have set the example in many
 areas.  They have cared for workers for more
 than 22 years in a safe manner. Last year we
 can be proud that there was  one pesticide-
 related incident not directly related to the agri
 industry  but outside of it.  Therefore, I
 applaud the  fruit growers,  greenhouse and
 nursery operators, the ag instructors and so
 many other agri persons in West Virginia for
 doing an excellent job with worker protection.
 Thank you.

    Robert Cheves:  I  come here  tonight with
 a  fairly different background, just being an
 extension agent in that when I got  out of
 college I was with a chemical company from
 sales through top management.  I then left
 there because I bought a farm and I farmed
 for 12 years, both with nursery and instruction
 with agriculture. In 1989 I went to Extension
 as county agent in Hampshire County, West
 Virginia, which is a horticultural, fruit-grower
 county, beef county primarily.
     I come to Extension with a fairly different
 approach than most of my counterparts in
 that I feel like I'm pro-active.  I actually show
 the farmers the information that I want them
 to have or information that the university
 generates that I feel  they should have rather
 than just teach them  something. And in that
1 light, when the Worker Protection Standards
 came into play and Wayne Casto came on the
                                                                    Pennsylvania   151

           scene in West Virginia with the same type of
           enthusiasm for getting information out, that
           is, trying to make sure you're doing it at the
           time that the group would be  there and so
           forth, we've •worked as a good team in putting
           the program together at least in the area that
           I'm for.
               I  think  it's  proved  to  work  and is
           successful, but it's not perfect. We combined
           together to do a lot of the  programs on
           Sunday afternoon when it would be more
           convenient for the workers, for example, but
           we still didn't get—as Wayne said—we had
           some slip-ups and some things happened we
           weren't sure about. The atmosphere was that
           what we were doing was necessary in helping
           the farmers rather than forcing something on
           them.   Once the orchards  and  so forth
           became sold on the  concept that we were
           there to help them in that light, it went very
           easy  for  them   to  cooperate  in  the
           participation.  I mention that because other
           agencies  have not necessarily taken that
           approach.   They have showed up  with a
           violation book or a list of fines, whereas this
           program has  shown with  an  educational
           program and with the concept of getting the
           job done.  I applaud that.
              I had some suggestions that I've written
           out.  You have to, in my area anyhow, you
           have to assume  that the grower wants  to
           comply if you all should happen to go in there
           because I  think that's the attitude.  I'm not
           sure that that's always the case in all areas. I
           would say to not nit-pick; evaluate the total
           attitude and the program that the grower is
           trying to do, if they're doing that. Use science
           and common sense as your basis of looking at
 the operation;  measure  your success  by
 percent compliance, not by fines levied, as I
 think some programs are monitored or taken
 to the farmer. Recogntee that we're very close
 to saving our farmers' time—that's a concept,
 that by the time the various agencies get done
 with them that there's little time left to farm
 maybe.  And I would say, as  I said earlier,
 continue on your approach to training.  I
 would  even say to go so far as to align
 yourself with agriculture in this  effort. Don't
 let yourself through TV exposure be beaten
 down in what you're  trying to  do. I say this
 because of the programs where  I felt that not
 only the farmer, but you all were taken to task
 unjustly. I think you all could better prepare
 and deter that in the  future and in doing so
 align yourself with  a  portion of this nation
 that's made it great.  So I'll stop  there. Thank

    Philip Lowe:  Yes, my name is Philip
 Lowe. I hope you all can hear me in the back.
 I just wanted to say that I have about a two-
 acre   greenhouse,    accommodations  in
 Shepardstown. I know that the first time that
 a couple of years ago when Wayne [Casto]
 stopped by to see  me,  it was  definitely
 worker-friendly. I like that word a lot because
 I think we  first heard about three  or four
, years ago when we were stiffing down the
 rules and regulations of the EPA, there  was a
 lot of fright. I think that because of the way
 that Wayne came across to me, not only as an
 inspector or a trainer, but he also came across
 to me as an individual who wanted to help me
 to continue to stay in  business as a taxpayer,
 to help my state and my county, and also my
152  Pennsylvania

employees and my family. That's why I started
my own business in the greenhouse part.
   I think Robert just kind of explained, too,
I think the  fines that sometimes you all
wanted to bring up on some small growers, as
myself, can be quite harsh. I know that we go
out of our way to try to accommodate your
rules, but not ever trying to over-exceed the
responsibility and safety of our employees
that work for us and that are not part of my
family. That's one thing. I think we have to
realize that these small growers like myself, if
they are fined to death, due to the fact that
we are against a lot of  different weather
elements, and I think that all of us in the
Agriculture  Department  realize  that, you
cannot predict this type of weather.
    I think, I sure do wish, that hopefully you
folks  that are up here on this table can have
the opportunity to maybe visit a small grower
and see how low, people  that are  at the
bottom of the totem pole, see if they're doing
a good job. They don't even know who you
are, just to find out what we're doing and
hopefully we're doing it right because that's
the way we want to do it and especially for
our state, West  Virginia, because it's very
important. So I thank you and I thank Wayne
for the worker-friendly protection that he's
helped us with. When we see  him coming
through the door, we're out to shake his hand
and welcome him very much. So thank you
 for those words here.

    Gary Lutman:  My  thoughts  on the
 Worker Protection Standards, being strictly a
 grower and everything of this nature, is that a
 lot of times a few gentlemen hear comments
coming back to you that are  negative and
everything, from ground roots people such as
myself that actually have  to  go  out and
implement worker protection safety for our
employees  and  everything.  I  won't  say
anything, as you can tell from us people in
West Virginia, we're well pleased with the field
representation  that we have  out there,
instructing us and trying to help us, like being
in compliance and staying in compliance, with
changing rules and everything. Lot of times
you may even take a look at your own house
and state to see that you've got people that are
worker-friendly, grower-friendly, trying to get
us in compliance, get them to working right,
like  that makes  us feel more safe, which
doesn't help us looking over our shoulder all
the time every time you see a strange vehicle
come into a field or anything. Things work
much better like this.
   I should also remind you, as a grower, that
with these rules and everything that come up,
these are bottom  line  costs that we must
absorb into our operations, some of which are
in red due to bad weather, which you all are
familiar with across this country. Always keep
that in mind, we try  our best to  stay in
compliance because we think a lot of our
employees and everything that we have with
us. A lot of people are long-term like that, and
we don't want to make them feel unwelcome,
'like they don't have a job or anything, like that
is worker protection safety work, and we must
force   them,   after   being   in  orchard
backgrounds for quite some years in their life,
having to take on a new way to do everything,
like this gentleman...
                                                                    Pennsylvania  153

               We get along great in West Virginia. We've
           got great field people out there. I wish all the
           other states represented here tonight had the
           kind of people that we have to work with,
           which makes worker protection much easier
           to do and implement in our operations.

               Richard Pallman: My  name is Richard
           Pallman. My brothers and I grow 300 acres of
           green tomatoes, 275 acres of wheat, 12 acres
           of strawberries, and maintain  300 acres of
           hayland in our rotation. We are also in the
           poultry business. I am here today speaking as
           president  of  the Pennsylvania  Vegetable
           Growers Association and as chairman of the
           Pennsylvania Farm Bureau of Labor Advisory
           Committee and  as a concerned  farmer.  I
           would like to thank you for the opportunity
           to  present  my  views  on   the  Worker
           Protection Standard and how it has affected
           our farming operation.
               I continue to be frustrated by regulations
           which are forced  upon us by governmental
           agencies which have no working experience in
           the industry  in which they are  trying  to
           regulate.    Apparently   the   agriculture
           community is  still regarded as  an  employer
           who treats his employees with no respect or
           regard  for the  health and safety of his
           workers. The workers are  the  backbone of
           our business; without them we do  not exist.
           We, therefore, want them to work in an
           environment which is safe and healthy and
           that causes the worker to want to  return to
           our workplace.
               New regulations usually mean additional
           expense. Other industries can usually pass that
           additional expense on by raising the price of
 the product that they sell. In the agricultural
 industry, we work on supply and demand
 pricing of our product. We do not have the
 luxury  of saying that, because we had an
 increased cost of $5,000 in implementing WPS
 on our farm, that I need 10-cents a box more
 for my tomatoes. Unfortunately, that ability to
 increase our selling price is out of our control.
    Most of the WPS we have been able to
 deal with in our operation with little change,
 but several areas of the WPS have caused us
 some major problems and I would like to
 discuss them. The biggest problem is the re-
 entry times  which have been assigned to
 chemicals with little, if any, scientific evidence
 to support it. How can a chemical like Benlate
 have zero days to harvest label for spring and
 then have an REI of 24 hours?
    Our biggest  problem   is  with  soil
 incorporated herbicides which are used prior
1 to  the planting of our tomatoes. Specifically,
 I incorporate Tillam into the soil.  I must wait
 12 hours for my  planting crew to enter the
 field because three of the workers must walk
 on the grounds and occasionally touch the
 treated soil. This system is fine as long as we
 are dealing  with  dry weather in extended
 periods of dry weather. We have a very small
 planting window for our tomato product—
 approximately  May 15 to June 15. Days
 become very critical to us. Our heavy soils do
 not dry out very quickly once they become
 wet. A field which has been  prepared for
 planting will dry out much slower than a  field
 which has been only plowed. Therefore, if I
 prepare a field for planting this afternoon and
 it rains during the  night, the soil could be too
 wet to plant the  next day. Now I got no place
154  Pennsylvania

to plant that day and the workers have no
place to work because even if I could work
plowed ground, I still have to wait 12 hours,
again, to enter the new field. This all translates
into lost dollars  for me and my workers. I
have to re-work  the field that was rained on
after it was prepared for planting, I lose a day
planting, and the workers lose a day's work.
    First of all, when these regulations were
first proposed  in 1974, soil incorporated
herbicides  were  meant to  be excluded.
Secondly, why after 30 years of using Tillam
according to the label without any known
health concerns, do we have to now wait 12
hours before someone can go in and touch
the soil? We are  not dealing with a fumigant;
we are dealing with a herbicide.
    My second problem area with WPS  is
with the central  posting of the time when a
field is to be sprayed. I can post a day when
we'll be spraying a particular farm or field, but
we cannot post the time prior to spraying that
field. Because of traveling and field locations
and  weather,   that  becomes  a  physical
impossibility. Breakdowns, whether  there's
road travel—that makes it all difficult.
    Also, the information that is required  to
be posted is very similar, but not exactly the
same as the United States  Department  of
Agriculture  federal pesticide record keeping
requirements. Why can't we have a better
coordination  of regulation  requirements
between agencies so that we as the ones being
regulated have less duplication in  what we
have to do? Both agencies are trying to do the
same thing, but each wants it in a different
   I hope  that after hearing from farmers
around this country that some changes can be
made  to  the  WPS  that  will  make  our
compliance  easier  to  deal  with  without
compromising the health or safety of our
farmworkers. Once again, thank you for the
opportunity to present my views.

   Bryan Litde: Russ, I should start by saying
thanks and if I start to get over six minutes, if
you could just throw something at me instead
of opening the trap door, I'd appreciate it. My
wife would like me to come home unbruised
if possible.
   Ladies and gentlemen, my name's Bryan
Litde  and  I  serve  as  the  director  of
governmental relations with the Washington
office  of   the   American   Farm  Bureau
Federation, the nation's largest general farmer
organization representing farmers  in  every
state  and Puerto Rico. I'd like  to begin by
commending the Environmental Protection
Agency for this effort to reach out to farmers
and their representatives at meetings around
the country to deal with issues  arising from
the implementation of Worker Protection
    It appears that EPA recognizes that the
Worker Protection Standard is unlike anything
the agency attempted before and as a result
they create so many problems. At AFBF, we
welcome the opportunity to work with the
agency to ease all regulatory burdens on far-
mers,  including  the  Worker Protection
Standard. Because  of its complexity, WPS
compliance can  be difficult and,  in some
instances,  it  may  not be  possible to be
completely in compliance all the time.   In
                                                                    Pennsylvania  155

           Florida,  for example,  state  enforcement
           officials found violations in 27 percent of all
           the inspections conducted between January 1
           of last year to February of this year. For labor
           intensive  farms, compliance  is even  more
           difficult Florida nurseries had violations in 71
           percent  of  the  inspections  conducted;
           greenhouses  were  in  non-compliance  48
           percent of the time; family farms with a large
           compliance standard, had violations only 5
           percent of the time.
               Farmers want to  protect workers and
           want to follow the intent of the law, but the
           complexity of WPS means that most farmers
           will miss something despite their best efforts
           to  be in compliance. The  Farm  Bureau
           believes that worker safety would be better
           served by a simplified version of the current
           regulation. Farmers and  farmworkers who
           clearly understand  the  practices that are
           necessary  to  protect  themselves  against
           pesticide  risks  are far  more  likely  to
           implement those practices. But requirements
           which are overly complex create confusion
           resulting in  non-compliance  and increased
           worker  risks. For those reasons, the Farm
           Bureau supports WPS changes that simplify
           the requirements in order to protect workers
           and to make compliance easier.
              AFBF  supports  WPS  enforcement
           policies that support compliance for farmers
           and  farmworkers  and this  could  include
           making reasonable efforts wherever necessary
           to educate farmers and farmworkers on the
           standard. I might also take the opportunity to
           commend the agency for doing what we think
           is an excellent job that, particularly early on in
           implementation of the standards and really
 going out of  the  way to  get  educational
 material  out  to  state  departments   of
 agriculture and through farm bureaus and
 other organizations.
    We recommend allowing those who may
 not be in compliance to get into  compliance
 before levying penalties against  them. This
 approach  could be  especially  useful  for
 farmers and for others who  don't have a
, history of crime on  compliance. And I might
 say that from what I've heard from farmers,
 this has been the experience in a lot of states,
 particularly true of Pennsylvania, where  the
 Department of Agriculture has  been very
 good  about  helping  farmers  to  be  in
 compliance rather than trying to  catch them
 and fine them when they're not.
    We welcome EPA's clarification, by  the
 way, the preamble  to  the September 1995
 proposed rule, which I understand became
 final   today,   to  the   effect   that   no
 decontamination provisions were required in
 cases where there will be no entry by workers
 in the treated area or where all treated plant
 materials have been removed.
    The Farm  Bureau also believes some
 additional changes could be made to the WPS
 to  clarify  requirements  and enforcement.
 First, EPA should eliminate the requirement
 for a decontamination site after crops are har-
 vested. We believe there are few cases, if any,
 where contact  with treated  surfaces occurs
 after harvest. While live plant material and
 foliage remain on many crops after harvest,
 there are few farm cultural practices that bring
 workers in contact with treated surfaces.
 Under normal circumstances, for example, in
 orchards, clean up tasks will  occur well after
156  Pennsylvania

the expiration and the post-harvest interval
for food  consumption. Thus, we believe
excessive exposure risk is relatively small.
   We disagree with the agency's assessment
that determining the crops that are ineligible
for such an option, would be too resource
intensive. We believe that the number of
crops with contact  with  treated surfaces
occurring after harvest would be relatively
small and eliminating the requirement that the
decontamination  site after  harvest,  with
exceptions, would remove an unnecessary
requirement for many farmers.
   A few additional suggestions in terms of
what  you  need to change in  the Worker
Protection Standards: we think it would make
a  lot of  sense  to  eliminate  any decon-
tamination requirement after the expiration of
the REI. Your own data as cited back to you
by the  National  Association  of  State
Departments of Agriculture  comments  on
your proposed September 1995 rule, cite the
fact that risk substantially declines after the
expiration of the REI, therefore, most of the
risk has already passed. We think that a fixed
30-day  decontamination  period  does  not
create the necessary incentives for farmers to
use lower toxicity pesticides, an objective that
has  been  part  of the agency's  proposal.
Pesticides with 24-hour REI are treated the
same as pesticides with a 72-hour REI and,
for these  reasons, we urge  the  agency to
consider making this change.
    I've got a couple of other things, but Jim,
you and Cathy  and I have talked about all
these things in the past. I'll probably continue
talking with you about them in the  future and
I  probably should wrap up before you push
the button on the trap door by saying that the
Farm Bureau  believes  that  some  of these
improvements in WPS could be doable by
simplifying  the  regulation  and providing
essential safeguards for pesticide workers and
handlers. We urge the Agency's consideration
of some of these proposals. Thank you.

   Russ Bowen: I have a question raised and
perhaps it needs clarification at this point in
time. The order of the speakers tonight is on
a  first-registered, first-speaking  basis.  If I
hadn't made that clear at the beginning, I

   Brad Hollabaugh: Thank you.  I'm  also
speaking tonight I  think on behalf of the
Adams  County  Fruit Growers Association
and  also  because  I chair  a  legislative
committee with the State Board Association.
I think I will be speaking also on behalf of the
State Board Association. I do appreciate this
opportunity here to speak before the panel
here about the Worker Protection Standards.
My group truly hopes that we will arrive at a
more  realistic method  of  accomplishing
worker safety in a flexible, meaningful way.
Although there are really many, many aspects
of the Worker Protection Standards that I
could address specifically, I don't  have the
time. I thought tonight  I  would at  least
address one issue that I feel is very important,
that is a basic contradiction I feel between the
philosophy  of the  standard and the actual
implementation  of the Worker Protection
Standard. We've been hearing examples of it
all evening here and I suspect we'll hear more.
                                                                    Pennsylvania  157

              I think the basic concept of worker safety
           is very sound, but the standard as it was
           written is flawed. Again, we are hearing more
           and more issues as we go through the evening
           to   that   effect.   Practically  speaking,
           inconsistent implementation of the standard
           has been difficult for a multitude of reasons.
          , Those reasons closely relate to the fact that
           there is such a variety in farm operations
           across the country. A 23-acre fruit operation
           doesn't have the same environment, resources
           and so forth as a 300-acre farm or 5,000-acre
           operation in the Southwest. Some businesses
           are family  operations, like ours, where we
           have historical methods of safely handling and
           applying pesticides and also developing good
           communication methods with  our seasonal
           employees. Other companies operate with a
           variety  of  long-term   and  temporary
           employees  and often have developed good
           track records for the safe use and handling of
           chemicals as well.
              Problems   arise  with implementation
           because the standard simply does not and
           cannot identify and address each and every
           variation in the makeup of modern farm
           operations. Our farm is basically composed of
           contiguous orchards; many farms are not.
           Our  farm is also surrounded by many public
           highways, which acts as an offering of scores
           of different opportunities for access ways into
           the orchard, which contain not just one fruit
           crop, but many fruit crops in many cases. The
           length required to complete one type of spray
           material on our orchard varies dramatically
           depending  on  the  crop we're spraying, the
           time of the year and so forth and from farm
           to farm that is true as well depending on the
application  method  of  the   operation.
Sometimes family members handle all the pest
management exclusively and in  other  cases
only the regular employees or seasonal people
will do that. And often the field workers  don't
enter a crop area for weeks at a time because
of the seasonal nature of orchard fruit. And I
hardly think there is a danger posed to the
workers in the winter time in this area at least.
    My point is that taken individually, each
stipulation in the standard could be argued to
be valid, necessary and essential to ensure the
safety of workers. But in the real world, do all
these additional regulations really change the
level of safety for the worker at large? For
years I had struggled to meet the challenge of
each new set of regulations and bring our
company into 100 percent compliance to the
best of my ability. I think there are those in
this room that will attest to that fact. But
when the Worker Protection Standard  came
along, I reached a point when my time was so
eroded dealing with the details of compliance,
that I was spending  dramatically less time
applying the skills most important to our
business. Those skills related to horticulture,
business management, planning for the future,
and yes, other human resource management
as well. Because the standard itself seemed to
be  constantly in flux in the early years both
with regard to the date of enforcement and
with the regulations themselves, I chose a
course  of action for our  company which
placed us somewhere between full compliance
and no compliance. Those items which helped
us  to  continue  to  achieve greater worker
safety were incorporated into our system of
operation  often  in  exchange  for   other
158  Pennsylvania

methods that were what I considered less
effective. But safety didn't come to our farm
with the Worker Protection Standard. Long
before any such regulations were forced upon
us, we had already established many practices
•which reflect common sense and respect for
the chemical tools of our trade. The primary
difference is that we did what worked for our
company  and we  did  it  in a way  that
minimized expense, but yielded the desired
result. As our company has changed over the
years, we have reevaluated our methods as
necessary, but being more strictly regulated in
a  way  that  increases  expense  to  our
company... [Taping suspended momentarily]

    Nelson Carasquillo: ...Good evening, my
name is  Nelson Carasquillo. We are here
tonight representing both the Farmworker
Health & Safety Institute and CATA, the
Farmworker Support Committee.  We are
based in New Jersey and also have offices in
Puerto  Rico  and  Kennett  Square,  PA,
representing thousands of workers who travel
along the Eastern migrant stream. We are glad
to be here tonight and to speak on behalf of
the  farmworkers, those men, women and
children who are most adversely affected by
pesticides, but whose voices are seldom heard.
    As farmworkers, we have struggled to get
the Right-to-Know Act passed in New Jersey
and are  pleased with the  creation  of the
Worker Protection Standard. While these may
represent progress in environmental justice
for farmworkers, it is only the beginning and
much work still  needs to  be done. In
Pennsylvania, the Worker Protection Standard
has  yet  to be fully  implemented.  The
Farmworker Health & Safety  Institute has
developed and implemented a unique worker
protection training for farmworkers. We have
been  approved by EPA nationally  and by
numerous state agencies. We are appalled by
EPA's Puerto Rican office and their unwilling-
ness to certify the trainings that we provide
on the island. We are considering legal actions
towards that. In particular, I would like to
comment  about  the  flagrant   violations
committed by farmers' WPS trainings and the
lack of enforcement of the WPS by both EPA
and   the  Department  of  Environmental
Protection, in this case, New Jersey.
   We  have heard  testimonies  given by
farmers on how  the  WPS is  complicated,
there  are too many pages to read in the WPS
book, some re-entry intervals are too long and
that  it  is  costly,  especially  in  regard to
decontamination  sites.  The  focus  is  a
monetary  one, not  human,  in  terms of
compliance. We have received  reports from
farmworkers working in southern New Jersey
that it is common practice for pesticides to be
sprayed in the same area where they are
working. This  is  against the  law and this
occurs  not  only  in  New  Jersey  and
Pennsylvania,  but all over  the country.
Farmers  are  not  complying with  their
responsibilities as stated in the WPS. They are
not providing transportation for farmworkers
who  need  medical  care. Farmworkers are
handling pesticides without special training or
clothes and the workers are not aware of the
re-entry intervals. In those cases where the
farmer is providing the information and the
worker  understands  it, most are afraid to
complain for fear of retaliation by the farmer.
                                                                   Pennsylvania  159

           The five-minute limit prevents me from citing
           additional abuses committed by the farmers.
              We are also concerned about who  is
           training the farmworkers and the quality of
           this training. The video seems to be the most
           popular method used by farmers and state
           representatives. They usually show this video
           to  large  groups of  farmworkers without
           monitoring the training or providing the
           additional information required by EPA. In
           one case, the farmer told the workers that
           they needed to see this video, put the video
           on the table without hooking up the VCR or
           putting the video in the VCR, left the room,
           returned  and gave the farmworkers their
           worker protection  cards without their ever
           having seen the video.
              It seems to  us that there is a conflict of
           interest   in   allowing  farmers  to  train
           farmworkers. What farmer do you know that
           will inform his or her employees where and
           how to file a  complaint if he  or she is not
           complying with the basic requirements? Even
           if  the farmer  is  meeting the  minimum
           requirements  by   showing the  video or
           handing out the booklets, the  quality of the
           training is severely lacking. While we believe
           the card system is needed, how is EPA/DEP
           monitoring that the workers with  cards
           actually receive the training or understood the
           booklet or the video?
              Both  EPA  and DEP,  the New Jersey
           Department of Environmental Protection,
           are not doing their jobs in ensuring qualified
           trainings  and  training  that  is   culturally
           sensitive and effective. Last week at the pre-
           season conference in Milleville, New Jersey, a
           train-the-trainer workshop was given by the
New Jersey DEP. After only an hour and 15
minutes of instructions and seeing the video,
those present could be certified as trainers.
This is not sufficient time to learn how to
train someone in something as complicated as
the WPS.
   It appears that the emphasis on this type
of training and the excessive use of the video
is to demonstrate the quantity of the trainers
being  certified  and   the   numbers   of
farmworkers being trained rather than the
quality of both. This undermines the power of
the WPS trainings. Is this the type of training
that you all condone? EPA and DEP, you all
need to start monitoring the trainings and be
more  stringent  in your  requirements  in
certifying trainers so that farmworkers are not
only  receiving   this  information,  but are
understanding it.
   In closing, I would like to challenge both
EPA and DEP. You need to take a stance and
hold farmers accountable. This is your job and
if you don't do it, who will? We at CATA are
involved in the ongoing struggle, but we can
only do so much. Despite the current political
climate and budget cuts, we are asking you
both  to make a commitment to strengthen
the  WPS  by  enforcing  it  and  by  not
weakening the regulations. We are asking you
to ensure quality training and certify trainers
who are concerned with the well-being of
farmworkers and not to certify trainers who
provide the  training  and  then  go spray
pesticides  on their workers. If you don't do
this, then what good is the WPS? Thank you.

   Jose Guzman: My name is Jose Guzman.
[Speaking in Spanish with English interpreter]:
160  Pennsylvania

He works for CATA. He's a pesticides trainer.
He will be talking about what is going on in
South Jersey. He goes to speak with workers.
They have to train them. Yes, one of those
days, somebody, they told him that yes, they
got the training. The farmer gave it with a
video and booklet. He  asked the workers if
the  farmer  was  complying  with   the
regulations. The workers told him that the
farmer was spraying  the  pesticides  over
them... having side effects of rashes. Yes, we
have for a  long,  long time with  terrible
problems from the pesticides.  Because the
farmer doesn't provide  transportation to the
hospital or a doctor. They have to get their
own transportation to  the doctor. Rashes,
headaches are the symptoms.
   Another farm, the worker told him they
were spraying directly on the people. Because
the houses where they live are very, very close
from the field. This farmer gave them the
training and he wasn't in compliance with the
regulations. In these fields, there were three
workers sick with the same kind of symptoms
like headache,  rash and tired. One of the
workers went to the hospital, a friend helped
him, took him to the doctor. The other two
never went because fears of the farmer. The
person that went to the hospital, when he
returned, he was fired  from his work. What
the farmer told him was that he doesn't need
sick people, sick employees. They went to
that field for a training because a few of the
workers were working without authorization
or a permit. On that  occasion,  the farmer
found, they were given a training. The farmer
told them they were without a right to be
there providing these kinds of service to the
workers. And even  the workers had any
rights. On another farm, they saw a person
applying  the  pesticide  without  proper
protection and without the training. Thank

   Shelley Davis: I'd like to begin by talking
about two  pesticide  incidents  that  have
occurred  since   the  Worker  Protection
Standard has come into effect. Just two short
weeks ago, June 13, a worker was assisting a
tractor driver who was applying pesticides to
shade tobacco in Connecticut. The farmer's
job is to clear the debris ahead of the tractor
and to open the enclosure, if you can picture
how  shade  tobacco  is grown. The tractor
driver who was applying the pesticide did have
protective equipment. The farmworker on the
ground had  none. That night he developed
nausea and vomiting, became very violently ill,
and was poisoned by the pesticide.
   The pesticide that was being applied that
night was  [Inaudible] ...which  is a toxicity
category three pesticide. In other words, this
is not your most toxic  pesticide;  this is a
moderately toxic pesticide. But that doesn't
mean that you want to put it in your bath
water. This is the kind of thing that if it drifts
onto  you as it did on this worker,  makes
someone extremely ill and, for that reason,
has to be treated carefully.
   Many people tonight have talked  about
making the regulations more simple, and that
is a sentiment that we at the Farmworker
Justice Fund heartily endorse. But simplicity
doesn't mean eliminating protection.  I'm a
little  bit afraid that that is the meaning that
many of the people that have spoken before
                                                                   Pennsylvania  161

           me want to give to that concept. I think that
           we can all agree on the need for simplicity and
           common sense,  but we have to fulfill the
           purpose of the regulation, thinking about how
           to make work practices safe. That was not
           done there.
              Let me give you another example, because
           some  of these  stories don't  have  happy
           endings.  On July  21,   1995,  Raymundo
           Hernandez was working in a tobacco field for
           the first time. It was his first day there. He
           was an H2-A worker from Mexico. He'd been
           a farmer for all his life. He was fine in the '
           morning. Around 1:30 in the afternoon he
           became very ill. He became dizzy, disoriented,
           vomiting. So the grower agreed to take him
           back to the labor camp and on the way, the
           grower stopped at  his  home which  -was
           between the field and the labor camp. He was
           in his house for a few minutes. When he came
           back out the worker wasn't in the truck. The
           grower says the worker was walking away and
           wouldn't get back in the truck. So the grower
           went back to his work and finished his day.
           Two-and-a-half-months  later,  Raymundo's
           body was found 12 feet off the road.
              This was a tragedy that could have been
           prevented in a host of ways. First of all, the
           way he was poisoned was that there was a
           tractor that was spraying pesticides 40 feet
           ahead of where the workers were working.
           Second of all, obviously, I guess we don't
           have to say it, that that obviously was not
           appropriate. Second of all, the grower should
           have taken this -worker directly to the hospital.
           When someone is ill, it's not a time to try to
           think about how sick, what the deal is; that's
           a time to seek medical attention immediately.
The third thing that I think is also very
important for all of you who are in the
enforcement side of it is that no adequate
investigation of this  incident was ever done.
The grower said there were  no pesticides
applied; that's his answer to what happened
that day. The workers in that crew say that
there was a tractor applying pesticides right
ahead of them were never interviewed by the
Department of Agriculture in the  State of
North Carolina. One reason they were never
interviewed   is   that   the   Agriculture
Department doesn't have any employees who
speak Spanish. It's too common here to know
that everyone has Spanish-speaking workers
for that to be an acceptable approach.
   There are many things that I would like to
say, but I'm going to  try to wrap up a few
important ones. In our experience throughout
the East Coast of the United States, the one
part of the regulation that is being imple-
mented is in the training, and that is very
good because that's a very  critical  piece.
Problems with the trainings are that there are
not translators available to answer questions
and that kind of thing, workers still don't feel
that they can exercise their rights. As workers
from CATA have said, they're afraid. These
are all  big problems, but at least training is
starting and we encourage that, too, but
nothing else is happening. All the complaints
about decontamination logs strike me as odd
in that no workers have ever reported seeing
any decontamination log. Workers don't see
chemical lists being posted. One worker told
me, lif a chemical is posted, no one has ever
told me where it is. There's no point in doing
it unless workers know where it is.
162  Pennsylvania

    We are in favor of flexible enforcement. I
applaud the agencies that go out and work
with the grower to figure out how to comply
in their operation, but enforcement then has
to have teeth. Then the enforcement officer
has to come back to find out whether the
operation did come into compliance. At that
stage, there has to. be  fines. This can't be
announced  in  advance. These  inspections
have  to be real so that actual  protections
occur and that people aren't hurt. We owe it
to the Raymundo Hernandez's of the world
to make this right.
    There are  a couple of things that we
would like to see added. We would like to see
a Right-to-Know Act that's national, that
workers get crop sheets and that they know
what they are actually being exposed to and
the symptoms that these things may cause.
We'd  like to see drift protection. I think we
can all work together to make things right.
We need a safe workplace. Thank you.

    Guy Donaldson: Good evening, my name
is Guy Donaldson and I am president of the
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, the state's largest
farm  organization. I am here to speak on
behalf of the more 26,000 farm families that
we represent. Let me clarify a couple of com-
ments that have been made here.
    I'm a lifelong resident of this county and
fourth generation farmer, fruit grower all my
life, and I  have never seen workers being
sprayed in Adams County. If it's one thing I
•would not tolerate, it would be that. I don't
know what you see in Jersey or North Caroli-
na or anywhere else, but that does not happen
in Adams County, Pennsylvania.
 ;  I commend the EPA for hosting this
series of meetings to receive comments from
those who are most affected by the Worker
Protection Standards, that is the growers. I am
one'of those growers. My family is involved in
the partnership. We grow apples, peaches,
cherries, vegetables and operate a retail farm
market. America has the highest quality, the
lowest priced food in the world. We want to
keep it that way.  This  country's  agriculture
exports are more than double the imports and
if you look at the economic standards that
have been put out, it's the exports of agricul-
tural products from this country that are ma-
king our balance of trade payments stand up.
   Agriculture again is becoming increasingly
more important to  the overall economy of the
United  States.  Burdensome regulations,
however, have the potential to change all that.
The  Worker  Protection   Standard   for
pesticides is a good concept, but it's often bad
in  reality,  putting us  at  an  economic
disadvantage to the rest of the world. The
compliance cost in time  and money could
very well bankrupt some of our growers.
These  regulations need to be revised with
common sense and economics in mind. There
are various improvements that could be made
that would increase compliance by making
compliance  easier  and  cheaper  without
compromising safety.
   Many of the rules cause confusion and
often pose economic  burdens without any
overriding need. In our own operation, when
we bring our workers in to  do  the training, let
me tell you very frankly, they're there to work.
We do the video, we do the verbal work with
them in Spanish, and all they want to do is get
                                                                  Pennsylvania  163

          out and work. They're there to work piece
          rate. Now if I'm training my own hourly
          workers, they'll  spend every day in there
          getting the  training. But the workers that
          come in there to work want to get out and
          work.  So  I'm wondering many times if the
          training is really that effective. Maybe the
          video needs to be updated, maybe we need to
          make it reach them more, I'm not sure.
              Another problem I have is how to utilize
          effectively our workforce because of the re-
          entry times. We  used to do a lot of summer
          pruning and it's  almost impossible to move
          people around in a feasible way to get that job
          done. So we simply eliminated them. Instead
          of having our workers come in and work in
          the summer months, they stay in Mexico or
          wherever because we're not going to put up
          with it. So it has  a serious effect there.
              Some specific recommendations that we
          would like to make are this: The Farm Bureau
          supports  a  shortening of  the  required
          decontamination time  period. The  EPA
          should eliminate the  requirements  for  a
          decontamination site after  the  crops are
          harvested. There's no need to have it then
          because then we're not using any pesticides.
          EPA should eliminate the decontamination
          requirement when the restricted entry levels
          expire. Decontamination  requirements for
          early entry workers and handlers need to be
          coordinated  with  requirements  for field
          workers.  Location  and accessibility should
          dictate the placement of the decontamination
              Farmers need to have common sense
          regulations  that they can easily understand
          and remember. They have a vested interest in
safety. I know because I work in the field with
my workers. Yesterday  I was  spraying with
one of the sprayers. I want them to be safe,
for the regulations to be safe for me and my
workers and I'll make  certain they are, if
they're common sense. Just get me regulations
that are reasonable, cost effective, based on
sound science and legitimate safety concerns
that my workers can understand. On behalf of
the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau,  I want to
thank you for this opportunity to speak here
this evening and I urge you to  address  the
problems that you've heard and  those you will
continue to hear. Thank you very much.

    Kenny Annis: Good evening, and thank
you  for  letting  us   participate  in this
conference. My name is Kenny Annis.  I'm
currently chairman of the Virginia Governor's
Board on Migrant Seasonal Farm Workers.
We have issues come before the board and we
represent both the grower and  the worker.
Some of the problems we're having in Virginia
is many of our workers come from Florida.
They're trained in Florida, they're trained in
South Carolina, they come to Virginia  and
they're trained again. Some even  come on to
Pennsylvania. Growers do not wish to rely on
another employer providing training. They're
really concerned. It was mentioned, employer
liability,  and that is a critical  issue with
    Many growers  in  Virginia  have small
farms, tobacco lots, rented  land. It's almost
impossible to meet the posting requirements.
Down where I live on  the Eastern Shore of
Virginia,  it seems like Friday night is  the
evening that you go out and you put up all the
164  Pennsylvania

signs  once you get through with the 9-11
signs. It happens everywhere. Growers are
concerned about this. One of the problems
that came before the Governor's Board of
Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers was the
tobacco crops. I don't know how many of
you've been  outside today,  but it's  pretty
warm. If you were in a tobacco field, it would
be  extremely warm.  When  you're wearing
technical  clothing, if you're breaking the
blossoms  or pulling the suckers  and putting
the pesticides on them, it's a very hot job.
    The growers are trying to provide the
necessary  clothing and  safety  equipment.
However,  it's very difficult to get the worker
to  utili2e  this equipment when it's  being
prepared.  I agree with a lot of things that's
been  said  here tonight. Thankfully I live on
the Eastern  Shore  and  I've  never seen
farmworkers   being   sprayed.  I  was  at
[Inaudible]...for 27 years and now I'm a retiree
so  I  can  speak  what I see.  I  don't think
anyone goes  out  and  sprays  workers
intentionally.  I  don't think growers  use
pesticides because they want to. They're very
expensive. I  think the housewife looks at
apple, cucumber, squash—you name it. The
pesticides  are going to be on there as long as
you want  them.  The gentlemen mentioned
the cheap price  of  food in this country,
basically  it's due to  pesticides. Not  all
pesticides  are bad;  not  every worker or
employer—Something's been bothering me
for some time: when  I hear of workers being
exposed to pesticides. I've  been told  that
growers and workers are combined nationally
when referring to workers being exposed. I
would like to hear the figure  on  the number
of farmers that have been exposed by their
maybe careless handling of pesticides. Where
I live, they do the applications; it's not the
worker.  The  corporate  farms  may  use
   The last thing that came before the board,
and I know this may not be the place, but
there's a lot of research  going on  nowadays
that can help reduce the  amount of pesticide
that is being used. I know that in Virginia, the
Department  of  Agriculture,  the County
Extension, it's pest management nowadays,
you reduce pesticides because it is very costly.
But we would like to see research that's going
on now. Tremendous things are happening to
reduce the amount of pesticides. I think the
growers would like that.  The growers do not
wish to use any more pesticide than necessary.
I thank you.

   Lori Rottenberg:  Good evening. My name
is Lori Rottenberg and I'm with  the
Association  of  Farmworker  Opportunity
Programs also known as  AFOP. I come here
tonight as head of the National Farmworker
Environmental Education Program. Basically
we're the largest national pesticide  safety
education program  for  farmworkers in the
nation. Last year alone we trained over 45,000
farmworkers on pesticide safety in 12 states
across the country. From January, 1996 we've
already trained about 14,000.
   I  really  appreciate  this opportunity to
share with  you  the experiences of our
program  with   the  Worker   Protection
Standard. The reason that I'm here is that I
believe  our program offers a  real strong
model  for grower-friendly and a worker-
                                                                   Pennsylvania  165

           friendly way to implement the standards. We
           believe that there is a win-win way to comply
           with  the  standard,  particularly with  the
           training provisions of the standard, and our
           program represents that.
              I want to start my testimony by just telling
           you a little bit about how our program works.
           It's in its second year of operation and it's in
           partnership with the AmeriCorps Community
           Service Program, which some of you may
           have heard about. Through AmeriCorps we
           get  individuals  who  provide  a  year  of
           community  service  for  a minimal  living
           stipend and an education award at the end of
           their service. Through this program, through
           this partnership, which requires  non-federal
           matching funds and all kinds of donations and
           whatnot, we  had 68 trainers in 1996 in 12
           states, as  I mentioned,  including here in
           Pennsylvania, whose full-time role it is to train
           farmworkers  on pesticide safety. In 1997,
           we're going to still be in 12 states and we're
           going to add a couple more as well so we're
           broadening our scope with time.
              Basically  we  developed  this  program
           because we saw a real need out there. We
           know that state Departments of Agriculture
           and other state agency staff are burdened with
           many things  that they  do and many didn't
           have the time  or  the bilingual  staff or  the
           other resources that they needed to go  out
           and train the workers. So we took  the need
           for  the  worker  training along with   the
           AmeriCorps  Program and  put the  two
           together to provide this service  for growers
           because many farmworkers were not getting
           trained before we started.
   What we  do is  we  provide intensive
training to  all our AmeriCorps  members
through a national conference. We then send
them back to their states so that they can get
certified   by  their   states  and  receive
certification to provide EPA verification cards
or whatever the tool is in that particular state.
And I'm glad to see training for farmworkers.
We teach that win-win approach is possible
and  necessary in training farmworkers on
pesticide safety. We tell them, you're not there
to be union organizers, you're not there to be
inspectors, you're not there to stir the  pot.
You're there to train workers on pesticide
safety because what we've heard  tonight is
there are a lot of growers  out there who do
want to do the right thing by their workers
and  we want  to help  them to do  that by
allowing them to save their time and their
money to do what they need to do, which is
farming.  We  can command  and  provide
trained  bilingual resources to provide  the
   Another reason why we're so successful is
that the training that we offer is free, it's
bilingual, it's live and it's interactive. I've heard
some people tonight talk about video. I think
me video is better than nothing, but I think at
the same time that it's really not very effective
in  training the workers.  You  have to
remember you're dealing usually with a low
literacy audience  that's not used to classroom
training. In fact,  I've seen workers when I've
gone out to visit the field who  tell me, "I
already have the card and I already have the
video, but can I sit in on your presentation? I
really didn't understand that video and I fell
asleep  and  nobody was  there  to answer
166  Pennsylvania

questions for me in Spanish so I'd really like
to sit in on your presentation as well." So we
get that quite a bit.
   We also provide the workers with the
EPA-prepared handbooks. The members use
EPA-prepared flip charts to go through the
11 basic points of the Worker  Protection
Standards. It's all very structured and laid out
so people aren't  just  out there  just telling
them whatever they •want to tell them.
   We try to work with growers whenever
possible, but we do run into  those growers
who really don't want to train their workers.
We   have   run   into  that   situation,
unfortunately. None of them are probably in
this room tonight, but we do run into that.
When we do face that problem, the members
go elsewhere. They go to  parks, they go to
churches, they go to community centers, they
go to  housing  complexes—wherever the
farmworkers can be reached, that's where we
go to train them. We'll train them however we
can get them.
    In addition, our program is innovative
because  we  conduct  evaluation activities.
We're not just conducting the training and
then running away without wondering how it
came  out  or if it was indeed effective--
somebody mentioned if  the training was
effective. What we have  seen is that this
training is effective. We use evaluation, pre-
and post-training questionnaires  both in
English and Spanish, some are written, some
are  picture-based  for those  who  have
difficulty reading and writing. We found that
the  majority of  the  farmworkers who sit
through this training do improve their score,
usually by an average of 30 percent before and
after the training. There is real learning going
on  there.  We  may be  one  of the only
education  programs  out  there  to really
evaluate that at all.
   Our program has had a lot of experience
with the Worker Protection Standard over the
last couple of years. What we have found is
the  standard is  providing  some  basic but
viable  protections to farmworkers.  If any
changes are made, we hope that as Shelley
Davis was saying,  that there will not be a
weakening of the protections in the standard.
We think that they are at a very low level right
now and they're really  not comparable to
protections in other industries who work with
hazardous chemicals. At the same time, what
is being done with the training in some of the
decontamination  and  signage   is  super-
   What we have seen is that farmworkers,
many of them either have been told or come
to believe that pesticides are medicines for the
plants. We've heard that over and over and
over again. People have been told, "This is
not harmful to  you, this is no problem." So
they think, "Oh, I have this on my skin, I'll
just take a little of this stuff if its good for the
plants, and I'll rub it on my skin," and they
wonder why they get a rash. I mean there is a
basic level of knowledge that is not out there
in the work force and that's why the training
is so incredibly important.

    Russ  Bowen:  I'm  going to  have  to
interrupt because  there are a number  of
people who haven't had an opportunity yet to
                                                                    Pennsylvania  167

              Lori Rottenberg: I'll finish up real quick,
           thanks. I'm sorry, I didn't see you stand up.
           Some of the things we've seen: we've  seen
           people sprayed with low toxicity things, like
           sulfur even, who have had  eye irritations.
           We've seen people with breathing problems,
           with skin irritations, with lung irritations that
           are still happening today. I've heard countless
           stories of workers who've been affected by
           drift.  It  may not be  happening here in
           Pennsylvania, but in my other site visits across
           the country, it is indeed happening. I would
           recommend strong enforcement, maybe not
           a fine right first thing, but we are there to
           help and we would be happy  to offer our
           services at any time. Thank you.

              Jill Edwards Hughey:  Hello. My name is
           Jill Edwards Hughey from Mountain Brook
           Orchards. We're located  in Franklin County
           and Adams County here in Pennsylvania. We
           have several different commodities that we
           grow. We have  bearing apple trees, non-
           bearing apple trees, peaches and pears. All of
           those are separated into  probably about 30
           blocks totaling approximately 1,000 acres.
              The two specific  areas of the  standard
           that I have found most  difficult to comply
           with because of the size of our operation are
           the decontamination  stations and also the
           posting and the central location of the intent
           to  spray  and the  spray  records.  The
           decontamination stations, to get one every
           quarter of a mile from  every point  in  our
           fields where a worker might be on any given
           day, is very nearly impossible without having
           a person full-time to move stations around.
           What we have tried to do is provide workers
that are on tractors or  sprayers with the
equipment and the water required in their
'spray cabs or on their mower with them or
however we can. But the reality of getting
three gallons  of water  plus  all the other
equipment required in a spray cab is difficult
at best. I found  it impossible to find any
container that can withstand  the kind of
conditions that those spray cab tractors go
through for any period of time.
   The posting at a central location of the
intent to spray is difficult for a reason that
another grower mentioned earlier. I  don't
know for sure when I'm going to spray. I
don't know until 7 o'clock in  the morning
when we get to the barn and I see what the
weather conditions are and we go through
what other fires there might be to put out,
that we're even sure we're going out that day.
   As to when we  get to each of the 20
blocks that I have bearing apples, I might as
well throw a dart at a dart board as to guess
that.  The way we  handle  it  is to  keep
everybody out of all the blocks that we are
potentially going to spray that day. But that
doesn't technically fulfill our requirement to
post that information. I have protected my
workers by keeping them out of the orchards,
but if an inspector came, would he or she be
   As far as posting what was sprayed and
when, that's a whole other ball game. It takes
me four spray rigs and an entire nine-hour day
to cover my bearing apple trees. Now, for me
to get the information from them, where
they've been, at what time they enter, what
time  they left, and get that posted in any
168  Pennsylvania

meaningful amount of time that it's going to
help any worker is again nearly impossible.
    Traditionally in our farm, everyone meets
at a central location first thing in the morning
and everybody sort of knows what everybody
else is doing that day because everyone is
getting  their instructions  with the whole
group present. And that has worked very well.
I find it difficult for me to justify my time
fulfilling these areas of compliance because,
quite frankly, I have never seen a worker look
at that board, not once. My seasonal workers
know where it is, my full-time workers know
where it is—never have I seen anyone look at
that board. If they want to know what's going
on, they ask me or one of my other foremen.
They know that I'll tell them. If the spray rig
people want to know what's going on, they
have access to the spray shed and they go  and
pull the label off themselves. We're not hiding
anything from anybody, we never have.
    I'm afraid that the whole nature of the
protection  standard  is  to  assume   that
employers want to mislead their employees
and to assume that the workers don't really
understand what's going on and can't protect
themselves.  I feel that these portions of the
standard are cumbersome and unnecessary.
Our old oral system of telling our workers
what is .going on, not sending our workers
into areas where the re-entry  interval is in
place, is essentially what we're still doing, but
actually is protecting the worker. I agree with
everyone else  and  I  thank you  for  the
opportunity to speak to you  about this. I
think the farmers are doing their best to
comply with the letter of the  law. I'm  sure
that there are farmers out there who aren't,
but I feel that no laws in the world are going
to force people who  don't care about other
people  to  exercise  the  common  sense
necessary to protect  their workers. But the
majority of farmers, we were already doing
that before there was a standard. I hope that
some amount of common sense and flexibility
can be introduced in so that farmers are made
to comply with the intent of the law without
having such specific  instructions  on how it
has to be done. Then it becomes  impossible
to comply. Thank you.

   David  Benner:  pnaudible]...dealing with
some   personal   protective   equipment
requirements especially in the heat of summer.
So I respectfully request that you look those
over again. I would just offer as a  suggestion,
for instance, you may go from a long-sleeve
shirt  to a short-sleeve  shirt and to require
washing your hands or something or I don't
   Another thing I find very confusing is the
re-entry levels. I would hope and request that
you look at all these products and let science
give the answers. The number one problem
we have within our operation is Captan. Also,
the Worker Protection Standard is  an exercise
in communication and education. Commu-
nication is part of it. In the operations that are
in the hundreds of acres, I would respectfully
request that you consider things  like cellular
phones and  radios in  the  equipment as a
substitute for  maybe some decontamination
site requirements. Some-times we can get to
someone who has a problem, we can get to
him  quicker  than   he  can   get  to  a
decontamination site.
                                                                   Pennsylvania  169

              I would also request that you all would
           consider that production agriculture  has  a
           very difficult time passing along any costs
           directly into the production ag system. In
           March I attended an EPM conference. One of
           the topics in that conference was the fact that
           the federal government was looking for ways
           to quantify and qualify strategic plans and
           being able  to justify programs. Yesterday  I
           attended a meeting sponsored by USDA,
           Committee  on Resources,  Education and
           Economics, again to review a strategic plan,
           five-year plan, the assumption being made
           there that whatever plan was made, at some
           point it would have  to  be quantified or
           qualified.   I  would   assume   that  your
           organizations involved in WPS would fall in
           the same categories. I've heard mentioned in
           the introduction that  there are 3.5 million
           farmworkers. I, for   one,  will be  paying
           attention to that. It is  my hope and I hope
           that  it is  the  intention of WPS  that the
           number of emergency room visits and the
           number of health care related incidents, the
           dollars spent for those, will be reduced by the
           implementation of the Worker Protection
           Standard. I would hope that at some point
           these dollars could be passed  back  to the
           grower community for our reduction.
              Even though our workers are  better
           trained and educated, implementation of WPS
           has caused me to have  to deal with increased
           worker paranoia and neighbor paranoia. One
           of the most interesting features of the WPS
           label is that when the neighbors get hold of it,
           they get more excited. Thank you very much
           for the opportunity.
   Adelma Monferro:  Hello. My name is
Adelma Monferro. I am  teaching pesticide
safety training with the farmworkers. I am
bilingual and I find that increasing for them,
when they get a Spanish speaking person they
have the opportunity to ask me questions and
just not listen. I'd like to relate my experience.
Two cases only  I will relate.  One is I was
training in the [Inaudible]...  fields and I was
very  sad  to  see  that  all  my  training
about"you've  got to change  your clothing
every day after you wash separately'—I'm not
going to go over  that because I know you all
know about the  training—I  found that they
have not facilities available. They have not
shower, not washer machine. So these my
comments, I just leave my comment there.
   Another situation is I gave training to a
person, asked him, were you ever taught
pesticide safety training? He said to me, yes, in
Florida. But, I gave him the  training because
he said that he couldn't get  [Inaudible]... He
explained to his boss, he said he did nothing
but sit in the truck and roll the windows up.
So  he  was protected,  that  was more  a
compartment,    but   the   training,   no.
Nevertheless,  they both  gave him  a very
friendly explanation which was, if we don't
finish this today our green peppers are going
to peak out so we have to move to work in
the green pepper field tomorrow, so I am
sorry about that.  So it was the worker health
versus the interest of the business interest.
Those things I believe can be arranged and I
hope that will be  done. Thank  you.

     Leonardo  Gutierrez:  My name  is
Leonardo  Gutierrez. I am a member  of
170  Pennsylvania

AmeriCorps.  We found  several  problems.
Workers have been training, a few of these
people have education, but when they asked
the  person  about  safety  concern  with
pesticides they noticed that these people  were
not knowledgeable  enough about pesticide
specifics. They thought it was not a good
thing to give  them  some kind of retraining
again. Another thing is that many of these,
they ask many of the workers concerning the
video, they saw it. Yes, they saw the video,
but  they don't  have enough  knowledge
concerning the pesticides.
    [Speaking in   Spanish  with  English
interpreter]: He thinks in his opinion that a
worker really doesn't care or he is not, doesn't
care about the pesticide, how to deal with the
pesticide.  They say that they  have  been
trained, they are  trained to improve the
training and  give them good training using
some kind of questions about the activity to
see how much they learned from the training.
He said that  many of these farmers or the
employer, they ask the workers if they could
be fired, would they protect themselves  from
the use of pesticides. Yeah, if they could be
fared they would protect themselves from the
use of  these  pesticides. They are trying to
emphasize  for the workers that the state is
there to protect and teach them the rights
that they have.

    Russ Bowen: Thank you very much. I'm
going to ask you to close now.

    Modesto  Cruz:  God bless you all.  I just
want to state  here and act as a witness today.
I joined the AmeriCorps Program in January.
I think the method towards farmworkers are
real positive. I feel the training classes are just
helping the farmer tremendously. I can see
the  results   towards  the  pre  and  post
questionnaires, comparing the post trainings,
like Lori was  saying, the effects were, to me
who is doing it visually, I found that they were
rising up  50  percent. So  I  think a  lot of
farmworkers  as we know don't have  a high
level of education. I think there are some of
them, for them to understand the training, we
heed to sit down with them maybe one-on-
one and maybe with  a group so they can
understand the  questions and  understand
what's going on in the training.
    I  feel AmeriCorps  is  something real
positive especially in  our community.  We
found that a lot of growers that we approach
don't have a lot of understanding of what
we're  doing.  I  just want to say to all the
growers that  are here: if you do find some
AmeriCorps members that approach you or
maybe write  you a letter, maybe you  can
respond to   them.  If  you don't have  an
understanding  then   maybe   get  some
information because we are here to help you.
For example, we were speaking with a grower
and he couldn't find in his schedule time for
us to  get in there and do some trainings. So
we offered to him that we're there for his
convenience. We have done early trainings, as
early as 4  to 5 o'clock in the morning to get
the farmer workers before they go  out to
work. So I think the AmeriCorps  Program is
a positive program. Also, I think it's very
effective and I think it's escalating hiring. For
the growers, I hope that you can open your
                                                                   Pennsylvania   171

           doors and accept our program so we  can
           apply it and put it in practice. Thank you.

              Angel Crespo: My name is Angel Crespo.
           I work out of the Westchester, Pennsylvania
           office. What I'd like to bring  out to  the
           audience here today is we have sometimes a
           hard problem getting into the companies that
           we can  give our training. They look at us.
           They are very skeptical, which I understand
           because of new people,  I've never heard of
           them  before. In  situations like that, we  will
           wait for them to  come out of work and we'll
           approach diem. We'll talk with them and then
           they'll let us know if they've been trained or
           not. But when we do ask them what kind of
           training they receive, they say, they watched
           the video and most of us fall asleep and some
           don't understand it because it goes too  fast
           and we don't know who to ask questions to.
           So what's  the use of watching it. These are
           what people tell me.
              We treat them as a human being so they
           won't get hurt working. So I will tell you,  this
           is what I've got to say and it's basic training, I
           will train you real  quick, in about half an hour
           is the maximum and then on top of that I will
           give you a certification card,  a certificate
           saying that you're certified in Pennsylvania.
           That's something that is  a little more motive
           for them to listen to us because they have
           something now  to show to everybody  else
           that they got trained.
              Most farmworkers they get scared when
           people approach them. Sometimes when they
           don't understand a question, they're scared to
           ask somebody. What we do is deal individually
           with  that  person   to  make  them  feel
comfortable is ask them questions to see if
they understand. Another example I'd like to
bring out: we also go through a clinic, a health
clinic in Kennett Square. What we do, we sit
in there and watch people as they come into
this clinic. One time I was sitting in there, I
seen this older man came in and sat next to
me. I was looking at him. He had half nails, he
had a severe rash across his face.
   I asked him, "Where do you work?"
   He said, "I work in the fields, I pick
    I said, "Why are you here?"
   He said, "I got this infection in my face
which I don't understand what it is."
   I told him, "Before you started working,
did they teach you anything or show you a
   He said, "Yeah, I watched the video, but I
never understood and then three weeks later
I got this on my face."
   He was putting creams and stuff like that
and it's not being taken care of. So  I forced
the issue on the growers and stuff like that.
   So if they pay attention to the video, great.
But if there ain't nobody there to answer their
questions,  to  make  sure that people are
listening to it, it's useless for them. So we're
going out there and dealing with people. I've
got a person who deals with chemicals, started
dealing with them with his bare hands. That's
part of the reason he has no nails on  his
   AmeriCorps is a great program and I  think
it forced  people  to listen. If  you  want
information, we're here  to help you. We're
here at your convenience. We have them at 5
in the morning before people enter the fields.
172  Pennsylvania

We've been here late at night We will go to
soccer games, where people live at, where
they eat at just for them to get the training if
they  need  it.  I think  this  is  a  great
organization. Thank you.

   John Peters: I don't have any particular
things other than to thank everybody for
relating their different experiences. It was
interesting to hear what goes  on in New
Jersey and South Carolina. We here in Adams
County can be thankful we've been able to
keep ourselves out of such practices and keep
our workers safe. This Worker Protection
Standard law, my feeling is what its goal is
obviously is to limit the worker's exposure to
pesticides. That is a good goal. However, I
believe this  can and must be done in a way
that also avoids  putting  an  unnecessary
burden or  liability on  the  growers.  As a
grower, that's obviously what concerns me on
one hand, and also the safety of the workers
on the other. So I thought I would give you
examples  of situations where  the Worker
Protection  Standard... [Taping suspended
while  tape  was  changed]  ...responsibility,
reliability  for me as  a grower,  but I'm  not
necessarily sure that it actually gains any safety
for the worker.
    One is the thing about the notification
with  the  quarter-mile  boundary of  any
spraying or anything that's done a quarter-
mile, you're supposed to notify workers. The
way our farm is set up, we have six main farm
groups and  five of them are contiguous and
then we have one that's off of it. Each farm
has its own group of workers that only work
on that particular farm. So even though they
may be within the  quarter-mile area of
spraying on farm A, workers at farm B, we've
got workers that have worked for us for 20
years, 30 years, that have never worked upon
more than one farm. So I don't necessarily see
how notifying them of spraying that's going
on in a farm that's -within a quarter-mile, but
still a farm that they don't even work on—that
doesn't necessarily improve their safety.
   Also, somebody could be in a certain area,
we have a big block of trees where they don't
get trimmed or picked or anything done to it
all in one  day so you may be in the same
general area for a period of weeks doing the
same job. Meanwhile,  say  you're  picking
apples,  say you're  trimming apple  trees,
somebody could be spraying  the  peach
orchard that's nearby or somebody could
spraying the pear orchard that's nearby, but
your workers are supposed to be trimming the
apple  trees.  So  if  they're  where they're
supposed to be, their exposure risk is really
none because they're not in the pear orchard,
they're in the apple orchard.
   One thing that we found to be successful
in keeping our workers  safe that's maybe a
slightly different twist than what the standard
requires is that, rather than worrying about
telling  each individual worker who's in the
tree—if you have a group of 10 people, say,
rather  than going to each one  of them—
you've  got to  make sure that  your  man
operating the sprayer knows where that group
of workers is. If you can say to him, "OK, I've
got workers in the apple orchard, don't spray
that, spray something else that day," that does
a heck of a lot more because that's where your
danger is, where your sprayer is.  It doesn't
                                                                    Pennsylvania  173

           matter if...they can be in an area that's not
           being sprayed and they're not going to be in
           danger of exposure there.
              Then the other thing was this thing about
           designating blocks  for posting your notifi-
           cation. We have numerous lots where we can
           have more than one variety of crop within
           that different block, say, a sweet cherry block
           or a peach block.  Well, you may have 'six
           varieties of sweet cherries in and may start
           picking two or three weeks ago and you won't
           finish for another few weeks. Well, that may
           be one block of 20 acres say, but if they're
           picking at a lower area, if this center section is
           your block, if they're picking at a lower area,
           the  other side  of  that  block  could  be
           thousands of feet away.  But for designating
           that a block, you're still, I guess, technically
           spraying in the block even though you're fat
           away. But if this is a block here and this is a
           block, you can designate your spraying in
           here, but you can have a worker working
           closer on this side because this is a separate
           block. There are some things there that just
           don't quite add up. I think you can safely
           spray in the same block where workers are
           working provided that you ensure that there's
           no  drift  and you  observe   the  re-entry
           intervals. I mean, if the workers are doing 100
           trees a day or something and in their group
           and you have a four-day re-entry, why that
           means you've got to leave at least 400 trees
           unsprayed so they have  a place to work for
           the next four days and then try to work
           around them. I hope that there would be
           some adjustment in that. Because the prob-
           lem  we  have is that our trees are already
           planted and we can't move our trees to adjust
with this new regulation. We have to deal with
the thing.
   And we have a sweet cherry block  that
people are working in, that if we don't spray
them there won't be anything there for them
to pick. With all the rain that we've just had
recently, why there's all the decay and there
•won't be a job for them anyway now. At the
same  time, we're not going in there  and
spraying the worker to save the crop. There
have been comments that that's occurring in
other areas, but I want to say again that in my
experience—and I'm not speaking for anybody
else—my experience is that that doesn't occur
in Adams  County.
    I guess my final closing thing would be just
to say that keeping workers safe and free from
injury of any kind, not just pesticides, but any
kind of injury on the job—whether it's falling
off a ladder or anything—is a primary concern
that we as employers have. I want to  impress
that to any of the advocacy groups we have
here with us as well. Aside from any monetary
value  that you want to put on a worker, why
just as human beings when we don't want
to...how can you tell a man to go to work for
you and then two hours later drive a sprayer
and spray him. I can't do that and I don't
think very many people  in  this room  can.
Maybe they can in South Carolina  or New
Jersey or some of these other places, but this
meeting is in Adams County and maybe that's
the reason we had it here  [Laughter]  because
iwe don't do that here. As a general rule, now
there may be an accident, but as a general rule
that doesn't occur here.  The unfortunate
irony is that in more time that we as  growers
are  forced  to  spend   dealing with  the
174  Pennsylvania

mechanical aspects of the regulation, all the
note-keeping and everything else, that keeps
us out of the field and that keeps us away
from our workers where we could  stop a
sprayer that might be coming by or we could
tell a guy, don't spill  that on himself. Those
things are where we could be  much more
valuable  and  infinitely more  effective  at
keeping their accidents and their exposure to
a minimum. So I  thank you and sorry about
going over.

    Mark Rice: I didn't want to  speak. I was
afraid I would put my foot in my mouth. I
guess there are growers out there afraid that
I'll put my foot in my mouth, too. I run an
800-acre   orchard   company,   six-figure
pesticide budget annually. I make  all the
decisions, call the shots,  tell people when
they're spraying, what they're spraying. I'm in
charge of everything so I deal with the -worker
protection  and safety  of my workers  and
everything that goes on on the farm every
    I wanted to start out by bringing some
statistics into it.  I think that there's about
40,000 annual deaths  from  car  accidents,
about 25,000  annual deaths  from gunshot
wounds, several thousand drowning,  several
thousand deaths from falls. I think that there
are probably several  dozen lightning strikes
that kill people. On a farm, I know there is a
problem  with   tractor   overturns.  They
probably kill dozens a year. I'm not aware of
ever  hearing  of  death  from   pesticide
poisoning. So why are we here? Why are we
here? My  share of the  national debt  is
   ),000. My little daughter's share  of the
national debt is $60,000. My whole family's
share of the national debt is  damn near a
quarter of a million dollars. How can we
afford to  be here fighting a problem that
doesn't exist? It does probably exist, but has
this accomplished anything to mitigate that
problem? I don't believe so.
   I think that there is  a basic dichotomy
here between  the efficacy groups and the
growers. The growers' motive is not hard to
understand. We  need  profits to  stay in
business. We see  a lot of good in staying in
business.    Our    motives    are   fairly
straightforward  and  simple.  Farming,  as
anybody  can tell  you, isn't. It is filled with
pitfalls that  affect  our profitability.  The
advocacy groups have another agenda entirely:
it's social, it's political. I don't think there'll be
a meeting of the minds.
   I think the Worker Protection Stan dard is
absurd. It's filled with so many absurdities
there's no time to address them all. Why, for
instance, is  every DuPont poison no posting,
but  [Inaudible] which  is not even  toxic,
requires  posting?  It   makes   no  sense.
Gramoxone requires  posting.  We  could
spread Lannate on the trees. Why? Right now
I've  got  25 people on the fields thinning
peaches and they're dealing with this 4-day—
I'm using Captan, sulfur, [Inaudible] as my
spray schedule. I spray Captan and I got a 4-
day re-entry interval and I've got a 2-day re-
entry on [Inaudible], that was two days, sulfur
I think's 24 hours. So some rigs go out with
Ziram, some go out with Captan so that I can
come back to the field sooner.  And yet, I
don't  believe  for  a  minute  that  you  or
anybody can tell me that there's any more risk
                                                                    Pennsylvania  175

           for Captan  than there is for Ziram. As a
           matter of fact, Ziram, the LD-50 on Ziram is
           2,500 milligrams per kilogram and Captan is
           9,000 so Captan's essentially non-toxic. Yet
           Ws got this 4-day re-entry. So you lose respect
           as these things accumulate and as you see all
           these inconsistencies. Not that we don't try to
           comply, because we really do, we have to.
           There's too much to lose.
              Let me say with regard to farm work in
           general, that I  think it's  not  an easy life. I
           think it's a terrible life and I  think anybody
           who can should get out of it. It's got long
           hours, it's got low pay. Most of the people
           have bad diets. Most of the people don't have
           the best personal hygiene. They travel around
           in rickety  cars. These   don't  reflect  an
           occupational illness, they reflect poverty. I try
           to fight their poverty. I sign their paychecks.
           I give them a paycheck,  I give them a job,
           OK? Now there's been a lot of talk about
           training,  training.  It  always  mystifies me,
           training. I'm supposed to train the people. I
           do train the people. I got the little booklets, I
           got the compliance materials, got the set of
           overalls in the van where the people are. For
           some strange reason, after we sprayed  for
           four days, five  days ago, and they'd been
           pruning and working in there for two days
           and all of a sudden they've been contaminated
           and need to change their overalls. We've got
           the overalls  in the van so we're legal, but are
           we accomplishing anything? No.
              OK, training these people. OK. I've got
           these 25 guys, they don't run spray rigs. They
           tend peaches, they pick  peaches. They  use
           hoes. They  don't spray pesticides. Anybody
           who runs a tractor and sprays pesticide is
intensely trained. The first training is how to
drive the  tractors  because  if the  tractor
overturns, not knowing how to use the brakes
and the gears on the tractor is so much more
dangerous than anything else that we're doing,
that we're talking about, that that's where the
emphasis is and of course everything else...
   The training, OK What am I supposed to
train these people to do? They got to go up in
the trees and they've got to pull the peaches
down and  believe me, we've got to spray. I
mean I know that so well. We have to spray
or we won't have this food, people want this
food. What am I supposed to train them in?
OK, wash  their hands, don't  smoke. Wash
their hands  before they eat, don't smoke, wear
a long sleeve shirt and there's not a lot more
to it than that. They're either going to listen to
me or not.  They're probably going to  smoke,
they're probably going to eat an occasional
thing  without  washing  their  hands even
•though the hand wash is there, believe  me.
That doesn't amount to anything.
   Then, these advocacy group's going to say,
we need  to train the workers. Well, what are
they really doing? They've got a legal  and
social agenda and  what they really want to
train the workers to do is to feel suspicious
and  fearful of the  bosses. It's  a political
agenda;  it's not a safety or health  related
agenda.  I  cannot  tell people  that chronic
exposure to pesticides is good for them. I
don't necessarily believe that. My experience
here in Adams County is that  fruit growers
live a long and healthy life. These other things
don't lead necessarily to long and healthy lives:
poor hygiene, poor diet, the lack of money in
176  Pennsylvania

    The training that comes in, I don't know
what they're talking about. They're going to
teach them to be afraid of pesticides. Now we
know, we know. You guys should know if you
don't know that there's this big thing that
happened in  Vietnam, they  used  Agent
Orange. I can tell you what's in Agent Orange
2-4-5-TP  mixed with 2-4-D. 2-4-5-TP  is
contaminated in the manufacturing process
by dioxin. Dioxin is a very potent human—I
don't know if it's a carcinogen or what. It's a
very strong poison second only to botulism
among known poisons. The thing about it is,
all  the  servicemen  in Vietnam who came
back—there's a tragedy going  on in  this
country—there are several thousand, many
thousands, tens of thousands of Vietnam
veterans who believe very fervently that they
have been poisoned and their lives ruined by
Agent Orange. But the government itself, no
matter how many studies they've done, can't
correlate that with  anything. Statistically  it
isn't borne out.

    Russ Bowen: Thank you. We're going to
have ask that you [Inaudible]...so everyone
else has  an opportunity to speak.

    Mark Rice: Well, I'll leave it at that then.

    Guy Moore: Well, my worst fear has been
borne out, I get to  follow Mark. [Laughter]
What else can I say? I would like to say to the
advocacy groups: I  have never, eve'r, never
sprayed  anyone [Inaudible]...! don't  know
anybody who •would do that Any farmer who
would willfully spray the workers should have
all the appropriate counties brought against
him.  I  do not consider a member of the
farming community that would willfully do
that to  a worker. Everything else has been
said. Many inconsistencies. Here on the East
Coast, lot of growers  out here  are  also
growing  vegetables,    cantaloupes   and
tomatoes. Chlorothalonil is a 24-hour REI.
That is the fungicide of choice. It is the most
effective available. When you pick these crops
every day, tomato and cantaloupes, you spray
them with something that's a 24-hour REI
you're going to be in violation so what's the...
[Taping suspended while tape was changed].
I hope that we can do something that works
out for the best for everybody.

   Nancy Santiago: I'm representing the New
Jersey   Department   of  Environmental
Protection, Pesticide Control Program. At this
moment I'm -working as  a worker protection
coordinator, but before I worked as a worker
protection coordinator, I was an inspector of
pesticides, exposures. For this reason, I have
a lot of experience. I am very surprised, this is
very good to hear that in Pennsylvania that
you don't have problems, but my experience
as an inspector being daily in the field showed
me that sometimes accidents happen. And
because of that I know that workers could be
exposed, even farmers could be  exposed. I
know that it's very difficult if the people don't
have the knowledge.
   What I see about the worker protection is
that it's  an opportunity  for the workers to
know something and in the daily community
it is really the community that responds. What
I see with worker protection is  an oppor-
tunity in a  poor community to  complain
                                                                   Pennsylvania  177

          about something that maybe in the past they
          never realized. I can see regarding New Jersey
          we have very excellent growers in New Jersey.
          Those  that have complied  with  Worker
          Protection Standards, they are the first ones
          •who are working with us in the department.
          And we also have a few that really don't want
          to deal with the issues of worker protection,
          but we know that is a very important issue at
          this moment.
              At this moment we  trained already over
          1,000  growers. Myself, I  did over  1,000
          growers. I'm training with a couple of groups
          and a group from CATA here and a group
          from Rural Opportunities  and the clinics,
          we've trained over  5,000  people  in  New
          Jersey. And I know that some of the trainings
          have  been very difficult for people to accept
          because what happened, for example, is some
          growers don't want the advocacy groups to go
          to  the farms. On the other hand,  some
          workers feel  intimidated  when the  state
          people go to do the training. There are places
          where they even  feel intimidated when the
          farmer does the training. For this reason, it is
          very  difficult to evaluate the whole  Worker
          Protection Standard only in the training. But
          I  can say,  for example, the  parts of the
          records, the records, for example,  in New
          Jersey, we know that can  be done. It's
          difficult, but can  be  done. We have done it
          since 1988. It's exactly the same amount of
          records that we have now in the WPS, it's
          exactly the same that we have been doing for
          1988. For this reason, I know that can be
              Before we did that, a group of farmers--
          myself and the Department  of Agriculture
that  in  New  Jersey   we   are   under
Environmental Protection [standards]—we did
a pilot  project to check  how  the worker
protection is going to work. What we did is
we  noticed if the farmers kept their records.
That was something, it's true, sometimes they
didn't notice the records.  A concern that I
have  is, for example, in New Jersey is the
different languages. We have over 10 different
Janguages in New Jersey, not only Spanish but
nine  other languages, which makes  it very
difficult. We noticed that sometimes people
would skip the flip chart. When they used the
flip  chart   sometimes   they  skip  the
    Regarding other issues, we know that it's
very difficult sometime to implement because
we  don't have enough money. But I think that
the Worker Protection Standard is one of the
ways  to make the farmers and  the workers
united, sometimes something in common that
they  can  share  some  knowledge  about
pesticides. I would like to congratulate EPA to
make these public hearings, because it is
important to hear the other side of the story.
It's important not only for the state to listen
to what the farmers have to say, but also to
give the opportunity to the advocate groups
to talk about their complaints, that they told
me about New Jersey, all of these problems,
that happened  in New Jersey.  We do have
problems, but we  also have  an educated
community too.

    David Bingaman: Thank you very much.
I'd first like to thank Bill Kleiner  at  the
Extension Office here in Adams County for
doing a lot of the legwork to put this meeting
178  Pennsylvania

together.  I'm neglecting  him  because  he
wasn't on my laundry list of people at the
beginning of the meeting, but I don't want to
let that go.
    I  would like to speak to you not as a
worker   protection    coordinator   for
Pennsylvania, but more on the part of a lot of
farmers in Pennsylvania with small acreages of
various crops that are greatly impacted by the
re-entry intervals on certain pesticides. A lot
of these pesticides  fall collectively into the
category of fungicides. And touched upon just
a few minutes earlier, the cantaloupe situation
with chlorothalonil  is an  excellent example.
Previously  we  heard  about  Captan  on
peaches, [Inaudible]... on strawberries—things
like this that prohibit growers from managing
their crops. They also prohibit workers from
having a job at certain times. We are in a
temperate  zone in the northeast and the
exposure  is limited by a shorter growing
season. I believe in California, some areas
around Salinas can  produce strawberries all
year.   I  don't  think  any  of  the  states
represented here today can make that claim.
    I  think some credits have to be given to
our growers  even  though  for EPA at
headquarters it creates a problem in that now
you have to do risk assessments based on the
reality of agriculture in different areas of the
country. But I don't feel growers in temperate
climates should have to abide by regulations
that are  more appropriate for  a 12-month
growing season that we have in certain states
in the United States. I'm talking on behalf of
a lot of growers that would include the Amish
community in  Lancaster  County,  where
growers may have only two acres of tomatoes
that they hand-pick for fresh market, a couple
of acres of cantaloupes and maybe three or
four or five other crops. They have mostly
hand labor provided by family personnel and
other extended relatives and in some cases
have exemptions under Worker Protection.
   But nevertheless, I think we need to look
at providing certain types of exemptions that
might  include  certain  personal protective
equipment for workers that will allow early
entry into fields. I spent a lot of time during
the hot months last summer putting a package
together for EPA  on that  to provide an
exemption, which was  denied. This was to
piggyback onto a request that Delaware made,
realizing that cantaloupes needed to  be
harvested every day during the production
season. During  the harvest season this  is
essential. And  the  fungicides need to be
applied to keep the plants healthy. It was a
real situation, but it was something that didn't
get addressed.  As  far  as  I'm concerned,
basically the growers  had to do -what they had
to do last year in all the states that were placed
in this  situation. Thank you very much.

   Chris Baugher: I'd like to thank you all for
holding  this meeting.  I don't  have any
prepared statements except I'd like to address
the  question  that  you proposed at the
beginning and  that •was, how effective  is
worker protection? I would say on our farm,
in our situation, that it has made no  difference
whatsoever to the protection of the workers.
Before Worker Protection, they  were all
trained because  they had to be trained for
HazComm under OSHA and they had to be
trained for Pennsylvania worker Right-to-
                                                                   Pennsylvania  179

           Know again. They were all told that if the
           sprayer was ever in the vicinity where they felt
           they were going to be drifted upon,  they
           needed to get themselves out of the  field
           immediately. No one was ever asked to work
           inside a re-entry interval. All the applicaters
           were properly  trained  and had many years
           experience.  So as  far  as  protecting  the
           workers, you've done nothing on our farm.
              You have done a great evil to limit my
           ability to spend time in the field. I have spent,
           I have wasted probably three hours in the last
           three weeks to  a month training people who
           don't work for me now. These people are
           migrant, they're transient. They were  trained
           at the farm before they got to me and were
           trained at the farm before that and were
           trained at the farm before that. They've been
           trained and trained to death and they're sick
           of it. When you  do train them, they're not
              The one thing that I really concentrate on
           when I do my training is the on site, site
           specific training  because  I think that's the
           most important, that they know where the
           facilities  are   on  our  farm  to  protect
           themselves  and where the records are and
           those things. But  they  never look  at the
           records. They know right where they are. I
           have never seen any of them go into the box
           and  pull the  records  to check  what was
           applied. I've never seen  any  of them and
           we've told them in the morning that we were
           spraying today and to go in and look at what
           is posted as far as what we're spraying, they
           don't use it But it costs me a lot of time.
              You  may  feel  that  you're  protecting
           people on farms where these—and I do tend
to believe that there are situations where
migrant  workers  get  sprayed.  I  think
everybody in this room who is  a grower
doesn't spray workers, never has. But that's
the kind of grower  that shows up  at  this
meeting.  There are growers  out there who
might spray a worker, but they're not going to
show up at this meeting and they're  not going
to comply and they're still going to spray
workers  if they want  to. Before Worker
Protection, the label language was already
there that they could  be sued and they could
be  thrown  in  jail.  So  it hasn't changed
anything there either. All you gotta do is get
'em. It was already the law. We didn't need
another law.
   So  if you really want to know  how
effective  it  is,  the  answer  is: completely
ineffective. The purpose was well  intended,
but my grandfather used to say, the road to
hell  is paved with good intentions. And I
think that's where we're headed because we
can't afford  it. We just can't afford it.  Our
margins are getting smaller and smaller each
year and I don't have time to  spend in the
field anymore because I'm dealing with  this.
That's all I have to say.

   Russ  Bowen:  Thank you very  much. At
this time I would like to ask if there is anyone
who has not had the opportunity to speak
who would like to speak.

   James Aidala: I know it's  been  a  long
evening and a very useful one, I don't want to
try to take up too much time. I just want to
say a couple of things. First of all,  this really
does help us build a record and the record will
180  Pennsylvania

be open if you want to, it's not that formal,
people can just write in letters and provide
comments, summarize what they said or what
they wanted to say and send it to us. Again,
the addresses are out front. That record will
remain  open until  this  whole  series  of
meetings across the country ends. That will be
approximately late September. Some people
have asked us about the timing of that. This
all goes into  the  record.  This all goes into
helping us make further deliberations of what
problems there  may  be, how  to make
improvements, helps us  build a record  on
proposals that have come before us.
    Let me recount a couple of major things
I've heard here. First of all, all these problems
notwithstanding, from  all kinds of points of
view compared to  when this whole  thing
started  18 and 24  months ago, before it
actually hit the field in any way, there were all
kinds of dire predictions from all kinds of
perspectives, about  103 different things that
could really implode. The fact that I think I've
heard [Inaudible] centering on a bunch of key
issues, at least for this region, is to me good
to know—to help us go further and figure out
where we need to do some further thinking
or to perhaps find solutions that work  for
some parts of the country and offer them to
see if they'll work  over here in the mid-
Atlantic    region.    (Taping   suspended
    For example,  the problems with central
posting,   decontamination   and  re-entry
intervals, as many of the growers have stated—
again, compared to some of the other prob-
lems that might have occurred as originally
advertised, I think that's a universe of issues
that we do need to address and one that I
think some other states may help us bring
some information to you that can help. We'll
do that for state agencies to help things in the
   For  better training—people are getting
trained and trained and trained with a video
that's called either too simple or too fast or
whatever. One person did suggest continually
attempting to improve the video  or other
basic training materials and I guess it was
certainly on our list, but again, this gives us
particular information to try and apply to that
   One  particular thing I  did want to talk
about is the pre-harvest interval and the re-
entry intervals, the reasons why they may
differ—on its face, why is it that there may be
very  low pre-harvest  intervals [PHI] and a
longer REI?  The rationale is very simple in
that the questions of risk are very different. If
you're talking about a potential  dietary risk to
the  consumer by the time the product is
harvested and it gets to the consumer some
days  later in  the processing or even in the
fresh markets, that's a different kind of risk
equation that our scientists look at compared
to when we're looking at an REI. There are
going to be places that, in effect, there is a
disconnect. As we go through review of these
older materials, that's when all of those things
will be brought to focus and we'll have to sort
those out.
    For example, on  chlorothalonil, we've got
a request—not just last year, we got a similar
request this year—I  was just told before the
meeting started by our staff, we've got some
additional information from the companies
                                                                    Pennsylvania  181

          that may help inform that risk equation. So
          that may help sort out the difference between
          the  REI  and PHI there,  based  on good
          science and based on protecting workers and
          making sure we've got the risk protections
          that we feel are essential.
              As we go through these questions, those
          are the kinds of things we're going to be
          looking for, and looking for information—not
          just from the companies but also from grower
          groups and other advocates of any position as
          we try to sort those things out.
              Let me close  on the point about the
          record. From all perspectives, this is a very
          controversial set of issues. Anecdotes and all
          inform us, but we have to go on a record to
          try and make changes. The more people can
          do to help us build that record—which your
          attending tonight helps us, the statements that
          are made tonight help us—that is what we're
          going to need to continue to  make this rule
          happen. Again, that goes for anybody who
          has a suggestion—whether things should be
          tougher, that they should be easier, that they
should be modified—we need that kind of
information to be put into the record that's
verifiable, held up to scrutiny before we can
consider making further changes. And again,
this whole  effort, your attendance tonight,
statements  made, the willingness  to  come
out...I  hope many  of you, if  you haven't
already submitted comments, some of you
who haven't spoken  will  want to submit
comments for the record. This helps  us do
our job and will help this program continue to
succeed. That's all I have to say. Steve, do you
have any other?   Instead of passing the
microphone back and forth to keep you here
longer, that might be it. With  that, then,  I
guess we're closed and again appreciate your
coming out on this evening and helping us
with this effort.

   [Meeting adjourned]
182  Pennsylvania

Registered Participants in the Public  Meeting
          Leobardo Alvarez
          Rural Opportunities, Inc.

          Kenny Annis
          Governor's Board on Migrant Seasonal

          Miguel R. Arrate

          C.B. Ashby
          Frederick County Fruit Growers

          Warren Aukett
          U.A.P./Ag-Chem, Inc.

          Chris Baugher
          Adams County Nursery, Inc.

          Stanley L. Bauserman
          Frederick County Fruit Growers

          David Benner
          El Vista Orchards, Inc.

          David Bingaman
          Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture

          Robert E. Black
          Catoctin Mt. Orchard

          Brenda Briggs
          Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Program
Scott Brown
Browns Orchards Inc.

Nelson Carasquillo

Wayne Casto
West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture

Robert W. Cheves
West Virginia University Cooperative
Extension Service, Hampshire County

Bud Cottrill
Bowman Orchards

Angel Crespo, Jr.
AmeriCorps, Rural Opportunities, Inc.

Modesto Cruz, Jr.
Rural Opportunities, AmeriCorps

Tom Davidson
Congressman Bill Goodling

Shelley Davis
Farmworker Justice Fund

A. Tomas Diego

Guy Donaldson
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau
                                                                      Pennsylvania  183

           Tupper H. Dorsey
           Virginia Horticultural Society

           Ken Eaton
           Ag-Chem Inc.

           Aguilera Edelman
           Rural Opportunities

           Susan Gardner
           Maryland Cooperative Extension

           E.S. Goodman, Jr.
           Bureau of Employment Programs,
           West Virginia Job Service

           Valerie Greene
           Maryland Farm Bureau

           Calveie Group
           Group Orchards Inc.

           Leonardo Gutierrez
           Rural Opportunities, AmeriCorps

          Jose M. Guzman

           Susan Hagler
           Migrant Health Project

           Win Hock
           Penn State University

           Kerry M. Hoffman
           Penn State University
 Brad M. Hollabaugh
 Hollabaugh Bros. Inc.

 Jill Edwards Hughey
 Mountain Brook Orchards, Inc.

 Roger Kaiser
 ISK Biosciences

 Lynn F. Kimp
 Adams County Fruitgrowers

 May Margaret Kuhn
 Kuhn Orchards

 David Kuhn
 Kuhn Orchards

 Daniel Leese
 Pennsylvania Farm Bureau

 Bryan Little
 American Farm Bureau Federation

 Philip Lowe
 Potomac Farms Nursery

 Matthew Lowe
 Potomac Farms

1 Gary Lutman
 Mt. View Orchard

 V. Majicia
184 Pennsylvania

Adelma Monferre
AmeriCorps, Rural Opportunities -

Guy Moore
Larriland Farm

Elizabeth Owens
ISK Biosciences Corp.

Richard Pallman
Pennsylvania Vegetable Growers
Association, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau
John Peters
Peters Orchards

Daniel P. Resh
Group Orchards Inc.

Ronald Resh
Group Orchards Inc.

Mark Rice
R&L Orchard Co.
                                                                 Pennsylvania  185

Site Visits  and Small Group Discussions
           Cooperative Extension Service, Pennsylvania State University Agriculture Department,
           BiglerviUe, PA
           •   June 27,1996, 8:00 a.m.
           •   EPA staff met with Bill Kleiner, fruit specialist, and other state officials on agriculture in
              Adams County, PA.
           •   Among the topics presented by Bill Kleiner were:

              —     Presenters reported on the local agricultural economy, noting that fruit orchards in
                     Adams County and surrounding counties generate over $103 million annually.

              —     Fruit growing in Adams County area is a diverse, stable industry, comprised of
                     multiple types of operations, and well-positioned to take advantage of geographic
                     access to many market niches, according to presenters.

           Hollabaugh Brothers Inc. Fruit Farm & Market, Biglerville, PA
           •   June 27,1996, 9:00 a.m.
           •   EPA staff toured this 300-acre fruit farm with owner Brad Hollabaugh. The farm, a family
              operation since 1955, raises apples, peaches, plums, nectarines, and pears.  All pest
              management and pesticide application is done by the five family members who own the
              company. Two or three other workers  work year-round, plus an average of 40 workers
              during peak harvest periods.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —     The grower would like more flexibility from EPA and state officials in WPS
                     implementation and enforcement.

              —     Concern that posting warning signs is difficult in an orchard setting.  Applications are
                     done throughout the orchards in a patchwork fashion, not necessarily in contiguous
                     blocks. It would be easier to tell workers where they can go rather than where they

              —     Perceived overlap between the WPS regulation, OSHA Hazard Communication, and
                     Pennsylvania Right-to-Know requirements complicates efforts at compliance.
186  Pennsylvania

   —    The grower opposes central posting as a waste of money, without offering any

   —    Perception that WPS has made no appreciable difference to safety, but has added
          extra administrative work. Fanners fear that potential lawsuits from -workers, even
          over minor violations, could be costly and drive them out of business.

   —    Farmers appreciate EPA assistance and the WPS training materials are good, but
          many workers do not want to be bothered with training. Each grower feels the need
          to do separate training, so workers get bored.

Ashcombe Vegetable Farm & Greenhouse, Mechanicsburg, PA
•  June 27,1996, 1:00 p.m.
•  EPA and state staff toured the 90-acre vegetable farm. Ashcombe started in  1957 with 25
   acres of fruits, vegetables, and a greenhouse retail sales facility. It now has 90+ acres, with
   seven full-time employees and 45 workers at peak season.
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —    The grower spoke of a misapplication violation last year and recently hired a new
          spray coordinator. All pesticide applicators have been certified.

   —  .  The grower has installed a clipboard systems for each greenhouse to note the name
          and amount of pesticide applied, time of application, re-entry interval, crop, pest
          problem, and applicator's initials.

   —    Concerns about the complexity of government regulation.

Farmworkers and Key Stone Health Care, Biglerville, PA
•  June 27,1996, 7:30 p.m.
•  EPA and state staff met with 10 farmworkers and two health care workers. The farmworkers
   were all full-time employees who had been with one employer from one to eight years.
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —    Farmworkers reported that they had been trained about five times (each time a new
          employee arrived, all employees took the WPS training).  They liked the training
          video and had no recommendations for improving it.
                                                                  Pennsylvania  187

                     Farmworkers reported attending a daily morning meeting about pesticide
                     applications. Applications were highlighted on maps in the meeting room. The
                     grower provided soap and water before lunch and before they left for the day.

                     None of the workers reported that they had ever been sprayed or caught in drift, or
                     had heard of a problem in Adams County. Housing is not located close to the
                     orchard, so pesticide drift over homes was not a concern. Workers were not
                     reluctant to see a doctor; and their employer had offered to take them to the clinic if
                     they were sick.

                     Health care workers (doctor and nurse) reported few pesticide rashes or heat stress
                     problems among the 3000-4000 people typically treated during the migrant season
                     for respiratory problems, poison ivy, rashes, cold, flu, and pregnancy problems.

                     Health care workers said that the farmers in this area were enormously cooperative.
                     They also have noticed more pesticide  awareness on the part of workers since WPS
                     took effect.
188  Pennsylvania

Written Comments
          Brad M. Hollabaugh
          Adams County Fruit Growers Association,
          State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania, Legislative Action Committees

          Bryan Little
          American Farm Bureau Federation

          Lori Rottenberg
          National Farmworker Environmental Education Program
          Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs

          Robert L. Baker

          Jonathan B. Bishop
          Bishop's Orchards

          Nelson Carasquillo

          Shelley Davis
          Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc.                  !

          Charles B. Ashby
          Frederick County Fruit Growers' Association, Inc.

          Richard Pallman
          Pallman Farms

          James N. Belote, III                           !
          Virginia Cooperative Extension
                                                                        Pennsylvania  189




June 26,1996


Brad M. Hollabaugh, Chairman Adams County Fruit Growers Association / State
Horticultural Associtaion of PA Legislative Action Committees.

Worker Protection Standard - Written Comments
The following remarks were provided to me in advance of the hearing to be submitted as written commentary
for your consideration.

•      Part AT submitted by John R. Peters, Fruit Grower, 517 Goodyear Road, Gardners, PA 17324
•      PartB. presented by Lewis Barnard, Fruit Grower, 1079 Wawaset Road, Kennet Square, PA 19348
•      WPS - Philosophy versus Implementation, presented by Brad M. Hollabaugh, Fruit Grower. 481
       Carlisle Road, Biglerville, PA 17307

 PART A '• .
One of the most troubling aspects of the WPS Law is that it continues along
in the highly undesirable trend of making the employer more and more completely
responsible and liable for the actions of his workers.  All of the in.formfit.ion
exchange (posting.* verbal warnings, training sessions, etc.) seem to be designed
to do little more than move all of the legal risk surrounding pesticides away
from the worker and put it all on the employer.  And it is done under the
guise of "protecting the worker."  Most of the work that is involved in trying
to comply with WPS could be eliminated if employees were simply made to sigg
and comply with a simple statement;  "I will only go to areas I am instructed
to go to; I will regularly was'myself and my clothes; I will wear the required
protective equipment when necessary; I will inform iny employer of any contamination
that I become aware of," You get the idea.  I'm sure that the legal profession
would probably be able to pick mo$t of what I suggest apart but surely someone
could write something that would stand, up.  We have so many things that we must
comply with already that it would seero to make sense to allow the worker to
share in some of the responsibility, particularly when he is the one that the
law is designed to benefit.  If he doesn't go where he is supposed to or if
he doesn't feel lik putting on his coveralls, why should the employer be the
only one who is to blame?  Why does the employer have to alert him to the fact
that the apple orchard has just been sprayed when the worker will be trimming
peach for the next week?  You can't run an orchard business if you don't have
the ability to adapt to changes in conditions.   Why  does  the  government  assuiae
that growers are not are not smart enough or honest enough to keep their
spraying away from the workers.  That is the only conclusion I can get from
the posting and notification requirements.  They act like we want to expose
our people and the only way to get us to stop is to make us tell them every-
thing we are doing, regardless of whether or not the worker will even be in the
treated area or not,
I suppose that I could go on and talk more about the monetary costs but those
are obvious enough so I won't mention it.  I guess I should make one favorable
remark for WPS just to be fair.  I do think that the record keeping  idea  is  a
good one.  It does make sense to keep general records of your spray program.
The grower can refer to the information for his own benefit, and if a worker
wants a question answered ,  the record  is  there.  Having said  that,  I  don't  know
how important it is to report every individual tank, tirae,; and contents.  For
example, say you have a certain area that got hit by hail so you add a different
fungicide to that area.  You'll have a nightmare on your hands if you try to
explain something like that to am agency person.  So I guess I am advocating'-

a less^specific reporting requirement than we currently have, while agreeing
that some requirement for records probably is beneficial.
To summarize,, it appears that the government has done what it lately seems to
always do.  It has found a "terrible" problem where ther was little or noae,
and then proceeded to over^egulate business while letting labor wash:>i€s hands
of any responsibility at the same time they get another legal hammer to pound

       It has been a frustrating Winter and Spring for most fruit growers. The -weather
 hflH a ftimnt inftnarva nn mir A»ily ggrfrvftiftg and mmeaageg and faitiTma  From a business
 standpoint, we must have flexibility to deal with mother nature's upa and downs. I have
 hadevery bard time fitting WPS in with aigoing activities necessaoy to grow a crop. I
 have tried to educate myself on its requirements and, last year, even bought a pesticide
 records computer program, to help me achieve this. "Somehow, during the rush of the
 growing gftanrvn^ my intentions fell wart.
       Honestly and openly, I have foiled to fulfill the WPS requirements and I can not see
 how I can possibly do better this year. Perhaps a non-farm large business .would consider
 hiring a person to do this or delegate this responsibility.  Financially, I can not consider
 employing someone to oversee regulations, and have no-one to delegate this to.
       As a relatively small acreage fruit and vegetable grower, I am and always have
 tried to create safe working conditions. I attempt to gwe instructions and safety tips prior
 to and during the workday,

       Each of us, as employers and farm business people, haw our unique ways of
 operating and are each better at some things than otherthinp. If WPS had been designed
 to educate growers of the goals which are desired, and allow us to capitalize on our
 strengths to achieve a general increase in safety, it would be an asset to all of us.

       As it is, you require training of wodcers well in advance of the actual performance
 of the task they are being trained for. Our workers are mostly not college educated people.
 Some of them can read and speak our language; come can not Many time they respond
 wife a yes answer to questions they do not understand at all. Many times, instructions
 given one day are completely forgotten by the following day.

       Regarding pesticide records. I have maintained records long before WPS required
 them. They were records {hat helped me to safely use pesticides and know where and
 when they were applied so it would be safe for myself, my ranuTy, and any outside
 workers. Your reeoid requirements hinder my efforts to do this. If I am required to record
 pesticide registration numbers for each chemical and record the number of acres sprayed (
 even though my sprayer is properly calibrated to spray either 33 crt.6acri» per tank-full),
 I am concerned that I may overlook the need to protect myself and my wodosrs while being
 bogged down in absolutely useless • busywork''!!

       I am sony.  I do not fed that WPS has any real value to me  in providing a safe
 working environment  Thank you for reading my comments.

       225 TOUHY AVENUE - PARK RIDGE • ILLINOIS • 60068 • (312) 399-5700 • FAX (312) 399-5896
       600  MARYLAND AVENUE S.W.  •  SUITE 800 •  WASHINGTON,  D.C. • 20024
                                        (202)484-3600- FAX'(202) 484-3604
                                 STATEMENT OF
                                BIGLERSVILLE, PA

                                   Presented by:

                                    Bryan Little
                           Director, Governmental Relations
                           American Farm Bureau Federation

                                   June 26,1996

                                    STATEMENT OF
                                  BIGLERSVILLE, PA

                                      Presented by:    !

                                       Bryan Little
                             Director, Governmental Relations
                            American Farm Bureau Federation

                                      June 26,1996
Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Bryan Little and I serve as a Director for Government Relations in
the Washington, D.C. office of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest general
farm organization, representing farmers in every state and Puerto Rico. I'd like to begin by
commending the Environmental Protection Agency for this effort to reach out to farmers and their
representatives at meetings around the country to deal with issues arising from the implementation  of
the Worker Protection Standard. It appears that EPA recognizes that the Worker Protection Standard
is unlike anything the agency has attempted before, which may create unique problems. At AFBF, we
welcome the opportunity to work with the Agency to ease all regulatory burdens on fanners, including
the Worker Protection Standard.

AFBF believes that Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides is an unnecessarily
complex and burdensome regulation. We arrive at this conclusion based on concerns expressed by
growers through our Labor, Horticulture and Nursery Advisory Committees, and concerns expressed
by state Farm Bureau staff who work with staff and members of county Farm Bureaus helping farmers
understand their obligations and responsibilities under the WPS.  These same state Farm Bureau
staffers also work with many state Departments of Agriculture, who as you know are charged with
day-to-day WPS enforcement, to advise and assist with their compliance enforcement efforts.

Because of its complexity, WPS compliance is difficult, if not impossible.  In Florida, for example,
state enforcement officials found violations during 27 percent of all inspections conducted between
January 1 of last year to February of this year.  For labor intensive farms, compliance is even more
difficult. Florida nurseries had violations 71 percent of the time. Greenhouses were in noncompliance
48 percent of the time.  Family farms, who have a lower compliance standard, had violations only 5
percent of the time. Farmers want to protect workers and follow the intent of the law, but the
complexity of the WPS means that most farmers will miss something, despite their best efforts to

Farm Bureau believes that worker safety would be better served by a simplified version of the current
regulation. Farmers and farm workers who clearly understand the practices that are necessary to
protect themselves against pesticide risks are far more  likely to implement those practices.
Requirements which are overly complex foster uncertainty and:confusion, resulting in noncompliance
and increased worker risks.  For those reasons, Farm Bureau supports WPS changes which simplify
the requirements in order to protect workers and to make compliance easier.  Likewise, AFBF supports
WPS enforcement policies that will ease compliance for farmers and farm workers. This can include

making reasonable efforts wherever necessary to educate farmers and farm workers on the Standard,
and opting to allow those who may not be in compliance to come into compliance before enacting
penalties.  This approach can be especially useful for farmers and farm workers who do not have a
history of chronic non-compliance.

In September of last year, the Agency proposed several changes to the Worker Protection Standard. In
general, Farm Bureau supports this effort to re-examine the Worker Protection Standard.  Farm Bureau
supported the Agency's efforts to examine shortening required time periods for decontamination kits.
While the Agency's proposal is limited only to those pesticides with a four-hour restricted entry
interval (REI), we recommended that EPA examine revisions in decontamination requirements for
pesticides with longer REIs as well.  Farm Bureau supported a zero-day decontamination requirement
for all pesticides with four-hour REIs.  There are two reasons why we support this change.

First, EPA states in the September 1995 proposal that one of the objectives for proposing to shorten
the time that decontamination sites are required after the use of four-hour REI products is to encourage
the use of low-toxicity pesticides.  A zero day decontamination requirement for certain pesticides
creates this incentive. The current 30-day decontamination requirement for all pesticides means
fanners will generally choose the pesticide option that is most cost effective. Revising the
decontamination requirement to zero days for pesticides with four-hour REIs provides a great
incentive to use lower risk products, especially for fanners who employ workers in the field every day,
or for many consecutive days. This makes lower risk products more cost competitive. Despite what
the Agency believes, the cost of providing decontamination kits is significant, particularly for farm
operations with simultaneous activities scattered over a wide area, perhaps at several different farms.
The cost difference between no requirement to provide decontamination kits after the expiration of the
REI compared to providing the kit for 30 days will give many low risk products a cost advantage.
Farmers who use few, if any, workers will continue to make pesticide choices based on chemical
efficacy and cost effectiveness. But farms that employ many workers, the very people EPA is trying to
protect through this regulation, have little or no incentive to use lower risk products as long as the
current regulation fails to differentiate for reentry time and decontamination period. A 15-day
requirement for example, provides insufficient incentive for farmers to use lower risk products.

Second, EPA states in the proposal that the 114 active ingredients that have a four-hour REI "do not
appear to pose any significant risks to workers." It is unnecessary, therefore, to specify long
decontamination requirements for pesticides that pose insignificant or no worker risks.

We welcome EPA's clarification in the preamble to the September 1995 proposed rule to the effect
that no decontamination provisions are required in cases where there will be no entry by workers into a
treated area, or where all treated plant materials have been removed.

Farm Bureau also believes a number of additional changes should be made to WPS to clarify
requirements and ease enforcement. First, EPA should eliminate the requirement for a
decontamination site after crops are harvested. There are few cases, if any, where contact with treated
surfaces occurs after harvest. While live plant material or foliage remain on many crops after harvest,
there are few farm cultural practices that bring workers into contact with treated surfaces. For
example, cultural practices on tree fruits after harvest involve orchard clean up and mowing »tasks
that do not involve any contact with treated surfaces.  Further, under normal circumstances such
orchard clean-up tasks will occur well after the expiration of the post-harvest interval for food
consumption.  Thus, risk of excessive exposure is relatively small. For annual crops, farm practices
include normal tillage in preparation for the next crop or the next year, but typically do not involve any

contact with treated surfaces. We disagree with the Agency's assessment that determining the crops
that are ineligible for such an option would be too resource-intensive.  We believe that the number of
crops where contact with treated surfaces occurs after harvest is quite small.  Eliminating the
requirement of a decontamination site after harvest, with exceptions, would remove an unnecessary
requirement for many farmers.             •••.•-: :<

EPA should eliminate the decontamination requirement when the REIs expire.  Farm Bureau agrees
with EPA that some farm activities involving significant contact with treated areas may pose some
risks, especially for high toxicity pesticides. However, EPA's own data, as cited in comments
submitted by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture with regard to this
proposed rule, states that risk associated with pesticide exposure declines substantially when the REI
expires.  Thus, EPA has set those time periods after which risk is reduced as  REIs for those chemicals.
In general, Farm Bureau believes there is no need for any decontamination requirement beyond
perhaps a single day after the expiration of the REI, in the event some unforeseen weather condition or
other factor presents some previously unknown risk. The decontamination standard, like the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Field Sanitation Standard, is designed to deal with
acute hazards, hazards which by and large have passed when the REI has expired.

A fixed, 30-day decontamination period does not create incentives  for farmers to use lower toxicity
pesticides — an objective that is part of the Agency's proposal. Pesticides with a 24-hour REI are
treated the same as pesticides with a 72-hour REI. For these reasons, we urge the Agency to consider
this change.

EPA should allow field workers to bring decontamination kits into treated areas as early entry workers
are permitted to do. EPA should also allow growers to make similar arrangements for provision of
decontamination kits for all types of agricultural workers. Currently, decontamination sites for field
workers must not be in an area being treated with pesticides or in an area under a restricted-entry
interval.  Decontamination sites for early-entry workers must not be in an area being treated with
pesticides or in an area under a restricted entry interval unless that location is necessary for the site to
be reasonably accessible to early entry workers. Handler workers must have their decontamination kits
immediately available.

Farm Bureau proposes to permit farmers to harmonize these requirements by allowing
decontamination sites  for field workers  to be located in an area under a restricted entry interval
provided that location is necessary for the site to be reasonable accessible to field workers, under
similar conditions as required for early entry and handler workers.  This change will allow sites to be
utilized in more recently treated areas, closer and more available to workers than the current
requirement.  In short, if it is safe, and indeed a good safety practice, to provide a decontamination kit
in a treated area for early-entry and handler workers, it must also be a good safety practice to at least
allow a farmer to  make similar provision for field workers.  At a minimum, farmers should be
permitted to furnish decontamination kits in the field, or at the nearest point access, whichever is more
convenient.                                               ;

Farm Bureau believes the above improvements in the WPS meet the dual goals of simplifying the
regulation while providing essential safeguards for pesticide workers and handlers and urge the
Agency's strong consideration.

Testimony before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Region 3 Hearing on the Worker Protection Standard
                    Biglerville, Pennsylvania
                         June 26,1996
                  Lori Rottenberg, Senior Manager
         National Farmworker Environmental Education Program
            Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs
                  1611 North Kent Street, Suite 910
                       Arlington, VA 22209

       My name is Lori Rottenberg, and I work with the Association of Farmworker

Opportunity Programs, as known as AFOP. At AFOP, I head the National Farmworker

Environmental Education Program, which is the largest national pesticide safety education
                                                  /    '

program for farmworkers in the United States. Thank you for this opportunity to share our

program's experiences with the implementation and enforcement of the Worker Protection

Standard. I believe that our program offers a model in which pesticide safety training really can

work to create a win-win situation for both farmworkers and for growers.

                                   Program Description

       I'd like to start my testimony by telling you a little about our program. Now in its second

year of operation, the National Farmworker Environmental Education Program was created

through an innovative partnership with the AmeriCorps national service program. AmeriCorps

provides individuals with a minimal living stipend and a small scholarship for college in return

for a year of full-time community service. Through AmeriCorps, we have 68 full-time, state-

certified pesticide safety trainers in 12 states who train farmworkers and other rural residents on

how to protect themselves from pesticides. In 1996, the program is operating in about 40 rural

communities in Arkansas, California,  Florida, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia. In 1997, the program will be in these states and

will also expand into Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington.

       AFOP developed this program because we saw the need for a national pesticide safety

program targeted specifically to migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Due to a lack of resources
                                          Page 2  ,

 and bilingual personnel, most pesticide safety education programs run by state lead agencies are

 targeted to farm owners in the hope that the farmer will then train his or her own workers. Many

 growers do this, but many others do not, due to time constraints, lack of training materials, and

 lack of Spanish-speaking ability. The result is that many farmworkers do not get trained as they

 should. AFOP requires each of the trainers in its program to train a minimum of 350

 farmworkers, and many of our trainers train well over 1,000 in the course of a year. This special

 focus on farmworkers has made us the single most successful program of its kind in the country.

       We at AFOP provide intensive national training to all the AmeriCorps members in our

 program about pesticides and the Worker Protection Standard and ensure that they are then

 certified by their states to provide farmworkers with pesticide safety training in accordance with

 the Worker Protection Standard. We station our AmeriCorps members at the non-profit

 farmworker job training organizations in AFOP's membership network and give them EPA-

 developed trainer flipcharts, which provide illustrations and a uniform training script that covers

 the 11 basic points required of all WPS-mandated training, and other EPA-approved materials.

 However, our members are trained to go beyond the flipchart to provide interactive, high-quality

 training that includes plenty of hands-on demonstrations, questions, and sharing of experiences

 while still only taking an hour or so of the farmworker's time. All services under this program are

provided free of charge.

                            Why AFOP's Program Is Successful

       Because of the extensive training and support provided to our members and because of


their extraordinary dedication to serving their communities, AFOP's program has been a success

in reaching out to farmworkers nationwide. Since the program's start, our small corps of

AmeriCorps members has trained nearly 59,000 farmworkers on pesticide safety, surpassing its

original first-year goal of 27,500 and likely surpassing its second-year goals as well. We have

also trained over 10,000 other community residents about pesticide safety and the provisions of

the Worker Protection Standard, and referred thousands of farmworkers to other education and

human services.  There are many reasons why AFOP's program is such an innovative and

groundbreaking pesticide education effort.                ,

       The most important reason for our success is that we train our AmeriCorps members to

serve both growers and farmworkers alike. Our goal is to provide a free service that will make it

easier for growers to comply with the Worker Protection Standard at the same tune that we help

farmworkers to protect themselves from pesticide exposure. Our trainers know that their role is

to serve as a grower resource and to train farmworkers on pesticide safety and link them with

other social services on an as-needed basis. Period. Our AmeriCorps members tell growers that

they are not visiting farms as inspectors, union organizers, or other controversial figures, and that

they are there to build rather burn bridges in their communities. We are proud that so many

farmers across the country have come to rely on our program to train their workers on pesticide

safety, and feel that grower participation is the key to the success of the program in a local area.
                                          Page 4

       In addition to establishing ourselves as a resource for both farmworkers and growers, we

are successful because we offer free, bilingual training whenever and wherever it is needed, and

we save farmers lots of time in conducting the training and in handling paperwork. Just over half

of our members are former farmworkers themselves, and 75% come from a Latino background,

so they figuratively and literally "speak the workers' language." Trainings are offered whenever

they are needed, whether it's before the sun comes up, late at night after the normal workday, or

on weekends to accommodate harvesting schedules. In addition, our members save growers time

by taking the tune to do the trainings for them and by providing them with copies of the detailed

logs they keep of the workers who they train and issue EPA training verification cards to so that

the grower can show his compliance with the regulation. We also provide EPA worker

handbooks to the farmworkers we train and frequently help to distribute safety posters and other

helpful materials to growers.

       While we try to work through growers whenever possible, our members have also been

successful in areas where growers have been slower to embrace pesticide safety training.  In these

cases, our members seek out farmworkers through churches, housing complexes, flea markets,

schools, stores, parks, and community centers. Because AmeriCorps is community service rather

than employment, our trainers have an uncommon dedication that makes them help farmworkers

in whatever ways they can.

       Another reason our program is successful is because it emphasizes hands-on, interactive

training. While some other providers of pesticide safety training use a brief video to train
                                         Page 5

farmworkers, we believe in live, interactive, hands-on training to best meet the needs of the

farmworkers we are serving. Live, bilingual trainers provide opportunities for questions to be

asked and answered, for simple demonstrations to be done (such as pouring baby powder on a

piece of fruit and passing it around to trainees), and for the sharing of experiences among

workers and growers. We have had farmworkers who had already been trained using the video

who asked if they could attend the live training session presented by our trainers; they usually

explain that they fell asleep when the video was shown or that they did not understand the

information as it was presented.

       Finally, our program is innovative because we conduct extensive evaluation activities to

examine our trainers' skills and to see if the workers are truly learning. Our trainers are required

to use short multiple-choice questionnaires with at least 25% of the farmworkers they train

before the training begins and after the training ends. We have the training questionnaires in two

languages (English and Spanish) and in two formats (traditional written and picture-based for

low-literacy groups) to accommodate the needs of our trainees. The results  of the questionnaires

show us that a majority (56%) of farmworkers increase their knowledge by 30% after

participating hi the training. The data also show that fewer than a third of growers and

farmworkers in rural communities knew how to obtain pesticide safety training other than

through AFOP's program.
                                          Page 6

                  Our Program's Experiences with the Worker Protection Standard

       Now that you know a little about the structure of our program and why it's been so

successful in reaching farmworkers and growers, I'd like to discuss our AmeriCorps members'

experiences with the implementation and enforcement of the Worker Protection Standard.

       Overall, we recommend that if any changes are made to the Worker Protection Standard,

they should strengthen rather than weaken the regulation. We have been concerned that EPA has

granted early-entry exemptions to several industries and that they may be considering additional

changes in the future. Considering the widespread presence of children and pregnant or nursing

women in the farm labor force, we urge EPA to not reduce restricted entry intervals but to

increase them to protect these special workers. EPA should also carefully field-test any proposed

changes in signage with farmworkers to ensure that any changes truly enhance worker safety.

Finally, we urge EPA to maintain consistency of WPS implementation among states to protect

agricultural workers as a whole, as other industries' workers are protected.

       Through our work with the National Farmworker Environmental Education Program, we

have found that the Worker Protection Standard provides basic but vital pesticide safety

information to farmworkers. All too often farmworkers have been told or come to believe that

pesticides are "medicines" for the plants and that they are not harmful to humans. In other

instances, I think that farmworkers have not really considered the potential hazards that they

work with on a daily basis. Although the frequency and technical content of the WPS-mandated

training falls short of what is required for hazardous substance workers in other industries, I have

hand how after receiving pesticide safety training, farmworkers make the connection between a

current skin, eye, or lung irritation and a past exposure to pesticides.

       I have heard many heartbreaking stories on my visits to the field to see our AmeriCorps

members do training. A worker in California who asked if the sulfur he had been accidentally

been sprayed in the eyes with could be causing his current eye problems. Many others who told

of getting wet with pesticide drift, and not being allowed to leave the field they were working in.

Another who asked if his breathing problems might be related to his 20 years of work in the

fields. A story of a child who drank pesticides that were carried home in a Coke bottle. I have

also been shown many skin rashes and irritations that workers suspected may have been due to

pesticide exposures. Each of these sad stories could have been prevented had the workers had

been required to have our training years ago.

       As you know, the fiipchart covers such basic information as where pesticides may be

found at work, how pesticides enter the body, possible effects and symptoms of pesticide

exposure, and how to protect one's self through proper handwashing, work clothing, and first aid

procedures. Each of the 11 points in the Worker Protection Standard must be maintained so that

workers can continue to get this important information.

       While I am very proud of the work that our AmeriCorps program has done with

farmworkers in the last two years, we  could be even more successful if we could have EPA's

assistance in overcoming several challenges that we have faced.

       The most prevalent problem our AmeriCorps members face is lack of enforcement of the

Worker Protection Standard. While staff at several state lead WPS agencies have been actively

supporting our pesticide safety training program (such as in Arkansas, Indiana, Maryland, Maine,

New Jersey, Utah, and Virginia), lack of enforcement of the WPS gives growers the message that

they do not have to train their workers. Some growers then disregard our members' attempts to

market their pesticide safety training services. In California in particular, we have learned that

some ag commissioners are even discouraging growers from training their workers this year

since the state is considering very small modifications to its own pesticide regulations on

signage. If growers got the clear, unqualified message that their workers had to be trained, most

of our AmeriCorps members could easily double the number of workers that they train.

       EPA could help hi this area by establishing worker training as a top priority for state lead

WPS  agencies and applying pressure to states that choose not to comply with WPS provisions.

While we also believe that EPA's current emphasis on evaluating the success is important, we

feel that it is a mistake to de-emphasize worker education efforts. There are still millions of

farmworkers in this country who have not been trained, despite the success of our own program

in some states. Given the current scarcity of federal resources to fund such education efforts,

EPA should consider establishing a fund that pesticide manufacturers contribute to, based on the

toxicity and the amount of the pesticide used, that could fund future farmworker pesticide safety

education programs. AFOP's AmeriCorps program could also serve as a model of an education

program that also incorporates extensive evaluation efforts.
                                          Page 9

        Lack of enforcement also shows workers that EPA is not serious about anti-retaliation

 protections. In most trainings I attend, at least one worker doubts that a grower will not fire him

 if he refuses to work in a field freshly applied with pesticides and shares a story about how

 someone was ordered to work through a pesticide drift or spraying. While our members explain

 to workers that change is a slow process, and that most growers want to do the right thing for

 their workers both for moral and financial reasons, workers are often skeptical  that they will be

 listened to if they complain. Strong enforcement is crucial to give workers the message that the

 careless practices that caused the need for the WPS in the first place will no longer be tolerated.
       Another challenge for a national program like AFOP's are the varying requirements for

trainer certification and training verification from state to state. While most states have

welcomed our program's trainers as the resource that they are and have been extremely helpful in

providing free or very low-cost trainer certification, some states have rigid policies in place that

make it difficult for our members to get the state trainer certification that they need. For example,

in California, we were recently not able to replace a trainer who left the program because the

state only offers train-the-trainer classes in the spring and fall. We had an excellent individual

identified who could have served in the program from June through its close in December, but

we could not take them on because they couldn't be certified until the fall, which means that a   '

key agricultural area in will lack training services for farmworkers. In other states, the lead

agency tries to set unreasonable goals to get our trainers certified, such as requiring that they

become licensed pesticide applicators. Ohio has been discussing making this a requirement of

our trainers in 1997.

                                         Page 10

       In addition, states' varying approaches to training verification also makes it confusing for

our trainers and growers alike. Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, have decided against issuing

EPA training verification cards, yet many of the growers that our members deal with in those

states still ask our trainers if they could offer their workers the card, since it has taken on a life of

its own as an easily recognizable compliance document. While the training verification cards

were never really pushed by farmworker advocates, since we hope that workers will get trained

over and over again rather than just once every five years, states should adopt a uniform policy

on training verification so that growers will not be confused and workers who migrate from state

to state will not face differing requirements. EPA could  also designate organizations like AFOP

to issue EPA cards nationally.
       Despite these problems, however, I want to stress how positive our experience has been

with this program. State lead agencies have on the whole provided useful and timely certification

training to our members and have been pleased with the extra manpower our program has

brought to their pesticide safety education efforts. Many growers have been extremely supportive

of our program, since it allows them to protect their workers and comply with the WPS without

having to spend any of their tune or money. The farmworkers of course have also benefited

greatly from our program, and we have documented knowledge gains and anecdotal evidence of

improved diagnosis and reporting of pesticide-related illness. And finally, our AmeriCorps

member benefits through the experience and training they receive, as well as their AmeriCorps

education award. We believe that our program offers a model of success that shows that worker

training does not have to be expensive or cumbersome for anyone involved.

                                         Page 11

       We welcome questions on our program and would be happy to provide you with any

additional information you might require. Thanks again for this opportunity to discuss our

program's experiences with the Worker Protection Standard.
                                        Page 12


      ThanU you for this opportunity to comment  on  the Worker Protection

      I farm 1n Delaware with my brothers and father.  We  till
approximately 3,000 acres and do as much of our  own crop protection
application as possible.

      All too common 1n this day and age of regulations, well
Intentioned rules are enacted without any regard for the real world
practical application that the changes will cause.   Consequently,  the
Industry 1s strapped with costs and burdensome mlnutta that  Is  designed
to solve a perceived problem that may not have actually existed 1n the
real world.

      An extensive study should be conducted to  determine  the costs  and
the  real benefits of such sweeping regulations that change the  way
farming 1s practiced.  Particularly bothersome are  regulations  and
labels that give states or regions competitive disadvantages as compared
to their competition.

      The most worrisome times that I experience as a handler of
chemicals are the following:  1.)  Jugs that glug and dribble.   2.)
struggling to get Into and out of PPE's.  I would estimate that 90%  of
the  exposure that I have 1s a direct result of these two things.

      Household laundry soap and motor oil come  1n  containers that don't
glug or dribble, yet hazardous chemicals arrive  1n  the same  types of
jugs that have been used for generations -that do.

      The PPE struggles are nearly all related to wearing  layers of
clothing 1n summer heat.  The coveralls and gloves  are always sweat
soaked and stick Co your body.  Also, the threat of heat related
problems 1s compounded by these layers.  Heat warnings are posted to
Hm1t outdoor activities.  I am forced to work outside all day  1n
coveralls over long shirts.  This 1s a good time to challenge each of
you  to send a day 1n the summer heat and humidity while wearing:   "shoes
and  socks, long-sleeved shirt and long pants, coveralls, and chenilcal-
reslstant gloves."

      I think that the desired results could have been obtained from the
farm community with an educational program.  If  there 1s statistically
significant data to warrant these regs, shouldn't 1t have  been  published
repeatedly 1n trade magazines and talked about within the  leading trade
organizations?  Is there evidence that I have endangered my  own,  my
families, and my employees health?  If this data does exist, who 1s
liable for this withholding of Information?
Robert  L. Baker

B.W. Bishop and Sons, Inc.
1355 Boston Post Road
Guilford, CT 06437
FAX:  (203)458-7125
E-mail: j_bishop@ix. netcom.com

Jeanne Keying
Office of Pesticide Programs (75067C)
401 M Street, S.W.                                  :
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Keying,

My name is Jonathan B. Bishop of B.W. Bishop and Sons, Inc. d.b.a. Bishop's Orchards. Our
farm is located in Guilford, Connecticut, where we have been growing a variety of fruits and
vegetables for 125 years. Although I will be unable to attend the EPA public meeting in my area
(Biglerville, PA) on June 26, I am appreciative of this opportunity to comment on the Worker
Protection Standard ( CFR,  Title 40, Part 170 )

When the standard was proposed in 1992, 1 was disappointed that comments from individual
growers were not accepted.  As then President of the Connecticut Pomological Society, I felt the
concerns of small diverse operations were being largely ignored. Further, as we became familiar
with the provisions of the Standard, it became clear that the authors had little understanding of
farm operations, and surprisingly little understanding of the principles of Integrated Pest
Management, an environmentally responsible approach to pesticide use. '"
I was also somewhat baffled by the need for such regulations, given that I couldn't recall a single
incidence of illness or death  due to exposure to pesticides in a Connecticut orchard, certainly
there had been none on our farm in its 125 year history. If problems did exist in some types of
operations or agricultural regions, surely they could have been rectified with well crafted
measures designed to address the conditions in those specific situations. In many ways the WPS
typifies everything that is wrong with the "designed in Washington" approach to solving

Having made these general criticisms, I would like to offer more specific comments on the various
provisions of the standard.

1 . Safety Training for Workers and Handlers

Initially I thought this would be the most difficult part of the WPS to implement. Fortunately this
has not been the case. We trained our full time staff as workers and handlers during the 1994
season. Our H2-A(Jamaican) workers came to us already trained, so there was very little
additional training effort required on our part.

During the 1995 season once again both Jamaican H2-A workers and referrals from Florida had
received training prior to working for us, and were carrying EPA approved cards issued by the
trainer. During both the 1994 and 1995 seasons we experienced very few walk-in job applicants.
This season (1996), some of our workers were not previously trained or had received training ,
but had not been issued cards, so we have had to trained them. Training workers is not too
difficult as long as it can be done in groups in scheduled sessions. All employees hired in a 5 day
period can receive training in one session,  rather than needing to hold a training session every
time someone is hired. For this reason, I would be in favor of retaining the 5 day grace period for
giving new workers their full WPS training. In reality, this poses no threat to worker safety,
because new workers are never on their own. They are working in groups with other experienced
workers, or in the company of a manager who is imparting knowledge necessary to complete
work tasks.

2. Central Posting Information

In anticipation of this requirement, in 19941 began shopping for a computerized pesticide record
keeping program which would simplify the job of maintaining an application list which met all the
provisions of the standard. I have found such a program in Chemtrak by OCS software ($595.00).
Unfortunately, maintaining an up to date application list still consumes a huge amount of time, not
to mention paper.

The WPS calls for applications to be posted 24 hours in advance of the application. This is where
the authors of the Standard really show their ignorance of IPM(Integrated Pest Management)and
Mother Nature. It is impossible to know 24 hours in advance if weather conditions will be
acceptable for making a pesticide application. Often we will scout intensively in anticipation of a
pest event (for example 2nd generation Pear Psylla egg hatch,  or timing a post infection Apple  „
Scab spray based on data from an orchard weather station) so that a pesticide application can be
timed to do the most good. The WPS actually encourages calendar spraying (not very
environmentally responsible), as that is the only way a grower could possibly know 24 hours
ahead of time what and where he will be spraying.

Posting information in a timely fashion is also more difficult than I expected. The logistics of
getting completed worksheets from the pesticide applicator entered into the computer, and a list
printed can be extremely difficult. I am already spending a considerable amount of time trying to
comply.  I am not sure that if my only job was to keep the applications list updated, that I would
be entirely successful.

Our farm is not that big that we can't communicate essential information verbally to work crews
or field supervisors. Additionally, all our sprayer operators, managers and field supervisors are in

radio contact so up to date information is always accessible. The WPS is not flexible in
recognizing alternative methods of accomplishing the mission of the Standard. EPA should set
goals for what it is trying to accomplish, then allow employers to work with local and state
agencies to develop strategies which make sense for the agricultural conditions in their area.

3. Notice About Applications For Workers               •'.

In Connecticut we have a posting requirement which predates the WPS, and is designed to notify
the public of applications of restricted use pesticides. Growers can choose to avoid posting by
using non-restricted use materials. The State publishes a list of restricted use materials so the
information is readily accessible to growers. I would prefer to use materials which do not require
posting under the WPS to avoid this time consuming chore.Unfortunately, The EPA has not
published such a list so there is no way of knowing ,in advance, which materials will require oral
AND posted notification short of obtaining labels for all pesticides from  the manufacturers.
Surely someone at EPA must have a list of pesticides which contains all the pertinent
information, such as posting requirements, which could be made available to growers.
Alternatively, EPA could make pesticide labels and MSDS sheets available in electronic format
which could be downloaded and printed. Some pesticide manufacturers, such as E.I. DuPont are
already doing this for the materials they manufacture. While not all fanners are set up to access
the internet, a growing number have computers and/or FAX machines. The EPA is already
maintaining a site on the World Wide Web. It would be very easy to incorporate this kind of
information into the existing site, or make it available through an automated fax-back service.

Once again, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to comment on the WPS. Our goal is,
as it has always been, to  provide a safe work environment for our workers. If you have any
comments or questions, please feel free to contact me.

                                                Jonathan B. Bishop

          «^\.« A «.r\.»
   Biglerville, PA Public Meeting

                       WPS PUBLIC HEARINGS
                             JUNE 26,1996
                          BIGLERVILLE, PA

Good evening.  My name is Nelson Cairasquillo.  We are here tonight,
representing both the Farmworker Health and Safety Institute and CATA. I am the
director of CATA, The Farmworker Support Committee. We are based in New
Jersey, and also have offices in Puerto Rico and Kennett Square, PA - representing
thousands of farmworkers who travel along the eastern migrant stream. We are
glad to be here tonight and to speak on behalf of the farmworker - those men,
women and children who are most adversely affected by pesticides but whose
voices are seldom heard.

As a farmworker organization, we have struggled to get the Right-to-Know Act
passed in New Jersey and are pleased with, the creation of the WPS. While this
may represent progress in environmental justice for farmworkers, it is only the
beginning and much work still needs to be done.  In Pennsylvania, the WPS has yet
to be fully implemented. The Farmworker Health and Safety Institute has
developed and implemented a unique WPS training for farmworkers. We have
been approved by EPA nationally, and by numerous State Lead Agencies.  We are
appalled at the EPA's Puerto Rican office's unwillingness to certify the trainings
that we provide on the Island, and we are considering legal action.  In particular, I
would like to comment about the flagrant violations committed by farmers, WPS
trainings and the lack of the enforcement of the WPS by both EPA and DEP
(Department of Environmental Protection).

(We have heard/I'm sure that we will hear), testimonies given by farmers  on
how the WPS is complicated, there are too many pages to read in the WPS book,
some Re-entry Intervals (REI's) are too long and that it is costly, especially in
regards to decontamination sites. Their focus is a monetary one, not human.

We have received reports from farmworkers working in Southern NJ, that it is
common practice for pesticides to be sprayed in the same area where they are
NJ AND PA, BUT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! Farmers are not complying
with their responsibilities as stated in the WPS: they are not providing
transportation for farmworkers who need medical care, farmworkers are handling

pesticides without special training or clothing, and the workers are not aware of
the Re-entry Intervals (REI's).  In those cases where the farmer is providing the
information and the workers understand it, most are afraid to complain for fear
of retaliation by the farmer. The 5 minute limit prevents me from citing
additional abuses committed by the farmers.

We are also concerned about who is training the farmworkers and the quality of
these trainings. The video seems to be the most popular method used by farmers
and state DBFs. They usually show this video to large groups of farmworkers
without monitoring the training or providing the additional information required by
EPA. In one case, the farmer told the workers that they needed to see this video,
put the video on the table (without hooking up the VCR or putting the video in the
VCR), left the room, returned, and gave the farmworkers their WPS cards without
them ever having seen the video.  It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest
in allowing fanners to train farmworkers.  What farmer do you know that will
inform his/her employees where and how to file a complaint if he/she is not
complying with the basic requirements?  Even if the farmer is meeting the
minimum requirements by showing the video or handing out the booklets, the
quality of training is severely lacking.  While I believe the card system is needed,
how is EPA/DEP monitoring that the workers with cards actually received the
training or understood the booklet or video?

Both EPA and DEP are not doing their jobs in insuring qualified trainers and
training that is culturally sensitive and effective. Last week at the pre-season
conference in Milleville, NJ, a train-the-trainer workshop was given by a the NJ
DEP. After only an hour and 15 minutes of instruction and seeing the video, those
present could be certified as trainers.  This is not sufficient time to learn how to
train someone in something as complicated as the WPS. It appears that the
emphasis on this type of training and the excessive use of the video is to
demonstrate the quantity of the trainers being certified and the number of
farmworkers being trained rather than the quality of both. This undermines the
power of the WPS trainings. Is this the type of training that you all  condone? EPA
and DEP, you all need to start monitoring the trainings and being more stringent in
your requirements in certifying trainers, so that farmworkers are not only receiving
the information but are understanding it.   •

In closing, I would like to challenge both EPA and DEP. You need to take a
stance and hold fanners accountable.  This is your job and if you don't do it, who
will? We at CATA are involved in this ongoing struggle, but we can only do so
much.  Despite the current political climate and budget cuts, we are asking you
both, to make a commitment to strengthen the WPS by enforcing it and by not
weakening the regulations (ie. don't lower the REI's).  We are asking you to ensure
quality trainings and certify trainers who are concerned with the well-being of
farmworkers and not to certify trainers (FARMERS) who provide the training and
then go spray pesticides on their workers.   If you don't do this, then what good is
the WPS?  Thank you.

       111119th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
           Washington, D.C. 20036
            Phone (202) 776-1757
                                August 21,  1996

  Jeanne Keying
  Environmental Protection Agency
  401 M Street S.W.
  Washington,  D.C.   20460

       Re:   Worker Protection Standard

  Dear Ms.  Keying:

       Please  accept for filing the complete, written version of
  the testimony we provided at the June 26,  1996 meeting in
  Biglerville,  Pennsylvania,  on the Worker  Protection Standard.

       Your assistance with this request is much appreciated.

                                Shelley  Davis
                                Attorney at Law

       1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
           Washington, D.C. 20036
            Phone (202) 776-1757
             Presented  at WPS Meeting, Biglerville, PA.

                          By Shelley Davis

       The Farmworker Justice Fund,  Inc.  (FJF) is a national
  organization that advocates for the rights of migrant and
  seasonal farmworkers,  including their right to a safe and healthy
  workplace.  FJF submits these comments on behalf of its  clients,
  who are farmworkers and farmworker organizations.

       To put in context any discussion of the effectiveness of the
  Worker Protection Standard,  we would like to begin by describing
  several pesticide poisoning incidents that occurred recently in
  the states of the Eastern Stream,  which illustrate the kinds of
  problems which occur and their consequences.

       Incident One; Farmworker Who Was Assisting Pesticide
  Applicator Was Not Given Personal Protective Equipment.   A few
  short weeks ago,  on June 13,  1996, a farmworker was assisting a
  tractor driver who was applying the organophosphate insecticide
  ORTHENE to shade tobacco in Massachusetts.  The worker was
  clearing debris and opening the enclosure for the tractor driver.
  As such, during most of the day, the farmworker was working about
  12 feet from the tractor.   The tractor driver was given  personal
  protective equipment to wear,  the farmworker was not. As could
  be expected,  however,  the pesticide DRIFTED onto the farmworker.
  That night the farmworker became very ill, with nausea and
  vomiting.  For several nights the symptoms were so severe he
  couldn't sleep.  And now,  weeks later,  his headaches persist.
  Orthene is a Toxicity Category III insecticide.  That means that
  it is NOT the most highly toxic pesticide, but is a moderately
  toxic product.  Nonetheless,  it can cause significant harm.

       When the farmworker went to a migrant clinic on the day
  following the incident, he reported to clinic personnel  that he
  believed that he had been poisoned by pesticides.  The doctor on
  duty that day was inexperienced and,  notwithstanding the signs
  and symptoms of organophosphate poisoning, failed to administer
  any RBC or plasma cholinesterase test.   Consequently, this is the
  kind of incident which goes unreported and is never reflected in
  the statistics on farmworker poisonings.

       What occurred here:   The grower mechanistically applied the
  Worker Protection Standard (WPS),  treating the tractor driver as
  a pesticide handler, but ignoring the participatory role played

by the farmworker in the application process.  The farmworker's
direct involvement in the pesticide application process entitled
him to appropriate training, PPE and other related protections.
Since these protections were not provided, he was injured.

     Because pesticides are used routinely, there is a sense of
familiarity with these products that leads employers to forget
that these products are dangerous.  This is the attitude that
needs to change.

     Incident Two;  Employer Retaliation.  In another incident
this summer, several farmworkers in New York State were sprayed
with pesticides while working.  When one of the workers asked the
grower what pesticide was being used, the grower fired the three
workers, one of whom had been employed on that farm for 19 years.
This kind of retaliation, if not severely punished, will sound
the death knell to these regulations, because workers will never
assert their rights if they fear that doing so will cause them to
lose their jobs.

     Incident Three:  Pesticides Can Be Fatal.  Some incidents
end in tragedy.  One such case concerns Raymundo Hernandez.
Raymundo worked in a tobacco farm in North Carolina.  On July 21,
1995, his first day on the job, he was sprayed with pesticides,
from a tractor, which was about 40 feet away, according to other
workers in the crew.  Raymundo became dizzy, disoriented and
nauseous and began to vomit.  The grower agreed to take him back
to the labor camp.  On the way back, the grower stopped at his
house for a few minutes to do something.  The employer claims
that when he came back to his truck, Raymundo was walking away
and wouldn't get back in the truck.  The grower simply went back
to the field and continued his work.  2.5 months later,
Raymundo's body was found, near the growers' house, about 12 feet
off the road.  His badly decomposed body could only be identified
by his sandals.

     This is a terrible story, because this is a tragedy that
could have been prevented: First, the poisoning itself could have
been prevented by keeping workers out of fields when they are in
the line of fire for DRIFT.  Second, when someone is very ill,
they must be taken directly to a medical provider — here a
hospital was only 15 minutes away.  Third, the state department
of agriculture never fully investigated this incident.  One of
the main things they failed to do was to interview the workers in
this crew.  They were impeded in this effort by the fact that
they had no Spanish speaking personnel.  The 2 crew members, who
eventually spoke to,the Sheriff's Dept to identify the body, were
extremely reluctant to do so for fear of losing their jobs.
Apparently, the grower told the state dept of agriculture that no
spraying occurred on that day and that was enough to end the
matter for the state.  This is not the way the WPS should be


     In the last few weeks, we have spoken with farmworkers and
their advocates from North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New
York, and Massachusetts.  The experiences people are having are
remarkably similar throughout the region.

     Training; The single provision with which there is the most
compliance is training.  This is very good, because in many
respects training is the linchpin of the program.  And getting
tens of thousands of farmworkers trained remains one of the most
daunting tasks imposed by these regulations.
     Nonetheless, not all have been trained; This job is
underway, but more needs to be done.  In different states, there
are many groups, including Americorp volunteers and grower
associations who are doing training.  But many workers remain
untrained.  This must still be a priority.

     Trainings are conducted without translators for questions
and answers;  Many workers are being trained through the use of
videos.  This is an acceptable method, but it must also be
accompanied by the presence of someone who can answer the
workers' questions.  All too often there is no one there who can
speak the language of the workers (and/or no time is set aside),
so that there is no opportunity for the workers to get their
questions answered.

     The workers still feel vulnerable to employer retaliation;
One interesting affect of the training is that workers now KNOW
that pesticides can be dangerous, but they still feel unable to
do anything about it.  Let me give an example:  One worker
applying an herbicide in a Virginia tobacco field became so ill
he had to be hospitalized for several days in very serious
condition.  He was too afraid of losing his job, however, to file
a complaint with the state pesticide agency.  This is common.
Workers are dependent on the jobs they have and they believe that
they will lose this employment, if they file a workers
compensation claim or a complaint of pesticide poisoning.

     Posting of warning signs;  Posting of warning signs has led
to another curious phenomenon.  In the Eastern Shore of Maryland
and elsewhere, growers are posting signs and then leaving them up
throughout the season, even though they continue to direct
workers to work in those fields.  That really defeats the purpose
of the sign.  The purpose of the sign is to inform workers of
when it is too dangerous to reenter a field.  If the grower posts
a sign and then instructs the workers to work in that field, no
accurate information has been conveyed.  The workers remain
COMPLETELY in the dark as to when it is safe and when it is

     Posting of Chemical Lists;    Throughout the region, workers
are reporting that they have NO ACCESS to workplace chemical
lists.   Perhaps workers don't know where these lists are posted.
So I asked workers about this.  As one Virginia tobacco worker

put it, "all workplace notices that I know of are posted in the
labor camp.  No chemical list is posted there.  If one is posted
somewhere, no one ever told me where that is."

     Decontamination water;  Washing with soap and water
immediately after a pesticide exposure is one of the most
effective ways of preventing or minimizing illness or injury.
For that reason, the WPS has required growers to provide
decontamination water to their workers for the first 30 days
after application (or 7 days for so-called reduced risk
pesticides.)  But NO WORKER or ADVOCATE that we contacted
reported that decontamination water was available.


     Enforcement of these regulations is critical, because it is
necessary to change behavior.  When you think about how the use
of seat belts has increased over the last 20 years, it's obvious
that people can learn to take health and safety measures but it
takes a lot of repetition and reinforcement to get them to change
their behavior.  Growers aren't going to take the WPS seriously
if they don't see any consequences from ignoring it.

     One effective way of enforcing the regulation, would be for
agencies to make inspections, inform the grower of the areas of
noncompliance and then return 2 weeks later to determine whether
the employer has come into compliance.  At that point, a grower
who is not in compliance should be fined.  Purely informational
visits are insufficient, however, to convey a message.

     Complaint Driven System; All too often, agencies operate
like the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and are only
going out in response to complaints.  GUESS WHAT, IT WILL BE A
QUIET SUMMER.  Workers will not complain.  I can't say this too
often.  They are too afraid.  They have too much to lose — and
have seen too much retaliation.  State agencies have to be
proactive to make the WPS more than a paper promise.

     Lack of Appreciation of the Danger;  Because of frequent use
of pesticides, there is far too little recognition by employers
of their potential for harm.  Compliance with the WPS is spotty.
On one North Carolina farm, the grower provided the workers with
training, but then allowed them to be sprayed by drift from an
adjacent field.  This shows that the employer still doesn't
realize the risks to which he's exposing his workers.


     The WPS was written with an ungenerous hand.  It is
difficult to understand or enforce because every rule has
exceptions — and even the exceptions have exceptions.  This is a
problem that should be corrected by EPA.  Instead, the agency
appears willing to make it worse by continuing on the road of
creating ever more exceptions.

      Both the growers and the workers agree that the regulations
 need to be simplified.   But "simply"  doesn't mean weak,  it means
 less complicated.

      Many of the changes since 1992 have significantly increased
 the risk of harm to workers.   On May  3,  1995,  the EPA issued five
 changes in the Worker Protection •.  Four  of the five changes
 seriously erode the fundamental protection afforded by the
 restricted entry interval (REI).   These  provisions allow "early
 entry"  exceptions  and exemptions and  shorten the minimum re-entry
 interval ("REI")  from 12 to 4 hours for  a large and growing
 number  of pesticides,  even though some of these products cause
 eye irritation and chronic health effects.   At the same time, the
 EPA reaffirmed the right of employers to expose untrained workers
 to  toxic pesticides before they receive  pesticide safety
 training.   The EPA decided to permit  growers a 5-day grace period
 before  workers must be  trained,  as long  as workers are given
 seven safety "tips" before they begin work.   But this turns
 occupational safety principles on their  head.   At a minimum,  no
 worker  should be exposed to toxic chemicals without first being
 taught  safe work practices.   The EPA  also kept the retraining
 interval at five years,  even  though annual retraining is needed.

      More recently,  in  June,  1996  the EPA permitted a reduction
 in  the  size of the sign posted to  warn workers to stay out of
 pesticide treated  areas and significantly limited the time period
 for which growers  must  provide decontamination water (which is
 the most effective way  to mitigate injury in case of accidental
 exposure).   Not only are these jchanges harmful,  but they were
 also promulgated in flawed and improper  processes.   For  both
 reasons,  these changes  should be rescinded.

      By contrast,  other initiatives to protect farmworker health
 have languished.   Most  notably, EPA has  violated its  1992
 commitment to providing farmworkers with the same  protection
 under the  WPS as other  workers receive under OSHA's Hazard
 Communication Standard.   For  although  OSHA's Hazard Communication
 Standard guarantees  that workers receive chemical-specific
 training and information about the products to Which  they  are
 exposed, farmworkers do  not receive these protections.
 Similarly,  although OSHA requires workers to be  trained before
 they come  in contact with a chemical,   the WPS  allows  untrained
workers  to  work in pesticide-treated fields  for  5  days without
 training.   Nor  has the EPA issued regulations to prevent
 farmworkers  from injury  from  pesticide drift, which remains one
 of the most  common ways  in which workers are injured.


     Compliance to date has been grudging.  Some have followed
some provisions, few have  done all that  is required.  This needs
to change.

     For the memory of Raymundo Hernandez and the many others

like him who work hard in order to a make a decent living for
themselves and their families, we owe them a safe place to work.
A whole lot more needs to be done to achieve that.

                                                P.O. BOX 2735 - PHONE 667-1336
                                                 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601

                                                     HOME OF
                                                SHENANDOAH APPLE BLOSSOM
                           June 25,  1996

-Jeanne  Keying
 Office  of  Pesticide  Programs
 (7506C), EPA
 401 Main Street,  SW
 Washington,  B.C.   20460

 Dear Ms. Keying,

     As Executive   Secretary  of   the  Frederick  County  Fruit
 Growers'   Association (FCFGA),   I   represent  37   growers  of  tree
 fruits  and vegetables  in the  Northern  Shenandoah Valley.    Also
 present this evening are  Tupper Dorsey,  President of the  Virginia
 Horticultural Society,  and Stan Bauserman,  President of FCFGA.
 Thank   you  for   the  opportunity   to   comment  on  concerns  and
 experiences  with  Worker Protection  Standards  (WPS)  Regulations.

     a.    Harvest workers  are well protected  with the   current
 level   of  regulations.     In 1995,   our  Association trained  and
 issued  424   cards  for   English, Creole,   and  Spanish  speaking
 workers.     Some   workers  arrived   for  the   harvest with  cards
 indicating training  received   in other states.   However,   most of
 our growers   re-trained   their  workers in  order  to  feel  more

     Spraying is completed well   ahead of  the  arrival  of our
 workers.   All these materials have   strict re-entry and  pre-
 harvest standards.   Naphthalene Acidic Acid   (NAA),  a stop-drop,
 which   may be used during the  harvest,   is  so innocuous,  it has a
 re-entry   period   based on drying  time.   Our  workers  are also
 provided   with hygiene and field  sanitation material in  their
 native  language,  (attached) We  sincerely believe harvest workers
 are well protected by the current standard.

     b.    Applicators  are also receiving  extensive  training in
 their native  language.    The  greatest  problem   from the  grower
 perspective  is making the applicator wear the Personal Protective
 Equipment. (PPE)   As most spraying  is  done  in the heat of summer,
 wearing the  extra   equipment  is difficult.     Employers  are
 providing  and requiring  the workers  wear  appropriate clothing.
 However, there needs to be some stated defense for employers when
 workers refuse to use protective clothing.

Page 2 - WPS comments....

     This is especially frustrating for growers who are employing
more  environmental  friendly  Integrated Pest  Management  (IPM)
systems.   Instead  of using  the  "shotgun" method,  IPM targets
specific  pests at specific times.   Growers and applicators need
alternative  options to  resolve  heat stress  issues other  than
simply stopping work.

"II.   Consultants are critical to  IPM management as well.  These
folks are needed to collect accurate data used for the monitoring
of pests and  diseases.  Currently,  consultants may enter  areas
otherwise  not permitted,  without PPEs.   We  hope there  are no
changes being considered in this part of the regulations.

III.   The new  standards  for re-entry  (12, 24,  and 48  hours)
should  be re-examined.  For  example, Stop-drop is  used to keep
apples  until they can be harvested.   Having to wait 12 hours to
begin picking defeats the  purpose of the application; especially
when  the product  is safe  after drying.   Scientific  study has
confirmed re-entry times  for each product.   Re-entry should  be
returned to those times.

IV.  Integrated Fruit Production  (IFF), currently is becoming the
standard  in   Europe.    This  "holistic"   concept  blends  all
horticultural, worker, grower, environmental, and consumer market
concerns regarding the  use of chemicals.   Fruit and  vegetables
grown  using fewer  sprays for  pest and disease  management, are
granted a-label  that indicates to the  buyer that the  fruit was
grown   with  special   management  techniques.     Perhaps   the
Environmental  Protection  Agency  could   consider  establishing
guidelines similar to the European model that would be helpful to
american growers, workers, and consumers.

     Thank  you  again  for  the  opportunity  to  provide  these
                                             Charles B. As'hby,
                                             Executive Secretary

S?  I^r
zr  -^  s o Q

O CD 2. -•

•8  a g |.

w  "s^. o y ^
-•  -^ ^ -? z
o o 3 3 ^S

~  n' p- C3 O

~*^ p ;; CD c.
i—  C CD o
Q  5 a c^
n  O

   CD .
o c
-1 3
Q a.
CD o_
O I J -, Q

El 11
c =3


                          o- o
                          CD  a
        * 5-
                          Q -•
                          C. =
                    CD Q CD
                    3 w 3
                    cD o =r
                    _ 3 __^
                    Q  O
                          — . o
                          Q_ C
                      CD •—'

                     •D 5"
                      O C
                      c —

                      _ CD
                                           5  irS IT   -
                                           --   «
                                                        o o    .ci  2. 9
                                                            §• 5 cF  S  §  «.
                                                               -        3

                                                •< "~ '*" ,

                                               § 9 Zf i
                                                    ^  fo 3


                                          38   S  J
                                          e Q   S,  ?:


                                  3   3-
                                  —  O

                                  a   S.
                 Z  « 3 ?: cTr.fT
                                    - Q

                                  5" 8
                            5-    3

                        'S" 3 fl)



                                          (/i   U- r\

                                          s = °l




                                      S:      M
                                                S  5"a - •<   5'
                                                   Q CD CD _  -'
                                                —  -n Crt — Q   C \
                                                CT  ^' « -, in   3

                                                           JO 1996
                                                      OPP PUBLIC DOCKET

        Comments to EPA on Worker Protections Standard

                         Submitted by
                  Richard Pallman - Partner
                        Pallman Farms
                    1511 Summit Lake Road
                   Clarks Summit, Pa. 18411

     My name is Richard Pallman. My brothers and  I grow 3OO
acres of green tomatoes, S75 acres of wheat, 12 acres of
strawberries and maintain 3OO acres of hayland in our
rotation.  We are also in the poultry business.   I am here
today speaking as president of the Pennsylvania Vegetable
Association, as chairman of Pennsylvania Farm Bureau's Labor
Advisory Committee, and as a concerned farmer.  I would like
to thank you for the opportunity to present my views on WPS
and how it has effected our farming operation.  I continue to
be frustrated by regulations which are forced upon us by
governmental agencies which have no working experience in the
industry which they are trying to regulate.  Apparently the
agricultural community is still regarded as an employer who
treats his employees with no respect or regard for the health
and safety of his workers.  The workers are the backbone of
our business.  Without them we do not exist.  We  therefore
want them to work in an environment which  is safe and healthy
and that would cause the worker to want to return to our work

     New regulations usually mean additional expense.  Other
industries usually can pass that additional expense on by
raising the price of the product that they sell.  In the
agricultural industry we work on a supply  and demand pricing
of our product.  We do not have the luxury of saying that
because we had an increase cost of *5OOO.OO in implementing
WPS on our farm that I need 1O cents a box more for my
tomatoes.  Unfortunately that ability to  increase our selling
price is out of our control.

     Most of the WPS we have been able to  deal with  in our
operation with little change in our operating procedures.
But several areas of the WPS have caused us some  major
problems and I would like to discuss them.

     The biggest problem is re-entry times which  have been
assigned to chemicals with little if any scientific evidence
to support  it.  How can a chemical  like benlate have a zero
days to harvest label for spraying and them have  an REI of 84
hours ?  Our biggest problem  is with soil  incorporated
herbicides which are used prior to our planting tomatoes.
Specifically if  I incorporate Tillam into  the soil,  I must

 wait  IS hours for my planting crew to enter that field
 because 3 of the workers must walk on and occasionally touch
 the treated  soil.  This system is fine as long as we are
 dealing with dry weather and extended periods of dry weather.
 We have a very small planting window for our tomato crop,
 approximately May 15 to June 15.  Days become very critical
 to us.   Our  heavy soils do not dry out very quickly once they
 become  wet.   A field which has been prepared for planting
 will  dry out much slower than a field which has been only
 plowed.  Therefore if I prepare a field for planting this
 afternoon and it rains during the night, the soil could be to
 wet to  plant the next day and now I have no place to plant
 that  day and the workers have no place to work because now
 even  if I can work plowed ground I still have to wait IS
 hours again  to enter the new field.   This all translates in
 lost  dollars for roe and my workers.   I have to rework the
 field that was rained on after it was prepared for pla'nting,
 I loose a day planting, and the workers loose a days work.
 First of all  when these regulations were first proposed in
 1974S soil incorporated herbicides were meant to be excluded.
 Secondly, why after 3O years of use  of Til lam according to
 the label without any known health concerns, do we now have
 to wait  IS hours before someone can  go in and touch the soil?
 We are  not dealing with a fumigants  it is a herbicide,

      My  second problem area with WPS is with the central
 posting  of the time when a field is to be sprayed.  I can
 post  the day  when we will  be spraying  a particular farm or
 field but we cannot post the time it will be sprayed until
 after it happens.   Breakdowns,  weather,  and  road travel  make
 it impossible to be that specific in timing  of a spray on a
 field.   Also  the information that is required to be posted is
 very  similar  to but not exactly the  same as  the United States
 Department of Agriculture's Federal  pesticide recordkeeping
 requirements.   Why can't we have better co-ordination of
 regulation requirements between agencies so  that we as the
 one's being  regulated have less duplication  of what we have
 to do.   Both  agencies are  trying  to  do  the same thing  but
 each  wants it in a different form.

      I hope that  after  hearing  from  farmers  around  this
 country,  that some changes can be made to the WPS that will
make our compliance  easier  to deal with  without  compromising
 the health or  safety of our farm workers.

     Once again  thank you  for  the opportunity  to  make  these
                              Pa 1 1 man
                              R i chard Pa11man
                              Parts.ier ,

                           Virginia Cooperative Extension
    Accomack County Office
       23201 Front St
        P.O. Box 60
 Accomac, Virginia 23301-0060
804/787-1361  FAX: 804/787-1044
August 1, 1996
Jeanne Keying
Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C)
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC  20460

Dear Jeanne:

The following are comments I have in regards to the Worker Protection Standards Regulations
that are currently open for public comment.

1.     Trying to comply with the Worker Protection Standards guidelines as written and be
completely legal all the time is a legal nightmare.  The regulations are still too complex and
are a major challenge to farmers who want to do things right. They also are very
discouraging to  new potential farmers.

2.     The responsibility situation is out of balance. All the responsibility is on the grower,
not on the migrant.  At the most, responsibility should be shared 50/50.

3.     Growers tell me trying to comply with the regulations is very time consuming.  Most
farm managers and owners say that it consumes 10% to 25% of their time, thus making the
industry less efficient.

4.     Emergency entry is still a problem. If the wind in a storm blows stakes over in a
tomato field, growers must
    Jeanne Keying
    August 1, 1996
    Page 2
    I thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.


f^^  T 	   "VT T^ 1 j.  Tl
    James N. Belote, HI
    Extension Agent, Agriculture
Kenny Annis
Don Delorme
Gary Young
Mike Weaver
Pat Hipkins
Fred Diem
Fred Custis
Lynn Gayle
Butch Nottingham


                                          rl M f

i • 11 iif i: i«i"iiJiii  i  IB  i  \vn
                              iiiiTi     m   « ip |"     P F


7.   California
       Public Meetings:

          Fresno, CA
          •  July 23,1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •  33 participants (33 registered), including 19 speakers

          Salinas, CA
          •  July 25, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
          •  56 participants (56 registered), including 19 speakers

       Site Visits and Small Group Discussions:
          Farmworkers, Fresno, CA
          •  July 22, 1996, 6:30 p.m.
          •  EPA staff met with farmworkers; Rudy Trevifio of Lideres Campesinas; Celia Prado; Luis
             Magana; Gloria Hernandez.

          Chandler Farms, Selma, CA
          •  July 23, 1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •  Visit to 500-acre farm, observation of harvest work in vineyards, orchards (peaches, plums).
          •  EPA and state staff met with owner Bill Chandler,

          AmeriCorps & Sponsor Organizations, Fresno, CA
          •  July 23, 1996, 12:00 p.m.                      '
          •  EPA and state staff discussed training issues with AmeriCorps trainers from the California
             Human Development Corporation and Proteus, Inc., and representatives from an insurance
             company and the University of California Extension Service (Fresno).

          Farm Labor Contractors and Agricultural Employers, Fresno, CA
          •  July 23, 1996, 1:30 p.m.
          •  EPA and state staff discussed training issues with farm labor contractors, growers, and the
             Cooperative Extension Service.                .
                                                                              California  191

          Fordel, Inc., Mendota, CA
          •  July 24,1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •  Visit to 500-acre farm (cantaloupes) and observation of melon harvest.
          •  EPA and state staff met with owner John LeBoeuf and farmworkers.

          Monterey County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner, Monterey, CA
          •  July 24,1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •  EPA and state staff met with Francis Pabrua, Robert Roach of the Monterey Agricultural
             Commissioner's Office.

          Matsui Nursery, Monterey, CA
          •  July 24,1996, 2:00 p.m.
          •  EPA and state staff toured the greenhouse, led by Tina Chapman and Jose Renteria, Matsui

          Farmworkers and Labor Representatives, Salinas, CA
          •  July 24,1996, 8:00 p.m.
          •  EPA staff met with 15 farmworkers; representatives of Teamsters, United Farm Workers,
             Independent Agricultural Workers Union, California Rural Legal Assistance.

          Kohatsu Strawberry Farm, Salinas area, CA
          •  July 25,1996, 9:00 a.m.
          •  EPA and state staff visited this 120-acre strawberry farm and met with owner Paul Kohatsu.

          Misionero Vegetables, Salinas, CA
          •  July 25,1996,11:00 a.m.
          •  EPA and state staff toured the in-house laboratory for pesticide testing and met with
             laboratory scientists.

          Clfnica de Salud, Salinas, CA
          •  July 25,1996,1:30 p.m.
          •   EPA and state staff visited this health care clinic and met with Dr. Maximiliano Cuevas and
              Dr. Rafael Siqueros.
192  California

Transcript of Public Meeting
Fresno, California
July 23,1996
              Beatriz Rubio: Good evening, my name is
           Beatriz Rubio and I will be the interpreter.
           I'm going to explain how the interpretation
           will be done. Those of you who need an
           interpreter, and want to listen to everything in
           Spanish, please  sit down  here where the
           headphones are.  Each one of you put on a
           headphone and  everything that is said in
           English you will hear in Spanish. If any of you
           want to talk to the people, you have to come
           to the microphone and I will interpret from
           here. Thank you.

              Jim Wells: Good evening. My name is Jim
           Wells.  I'm the  Director of the California
           Department of Pesticide Regulation and I'm
           here basically just to welcome you all to this
           meeting on behalf of the State of California.
           We've had the privilege and the pleasure, and
           the task, I guess also, of working with EPA on
           this rule going back clear to 1985 when we
           started  developing this  rule  through  a
           negotiated rule making process. We're still
           very much involved working with Region 9 in
           trying to blend the federal Worker Protection
           Standards into the California regulations.
           That process isn't quite complete—it will be
           complete this year, so that you have the label
           on   the  California regulations and they
           incorporate everything  you need to know
           about Worker Protection Standards. So I'm
not going to get in the way of the people who
really came here to talk; I know a lot of you
have been waiting a long time.  I'm going to
turn this right over to EPA; but we're certainly
happy to have you. This is a good turnout for
a hot July night during the Olympics and we
certainly appreciate your attention to this
program  and  we will  appreciate  your
comments.  It will make our program, as well
as EPA's program, better. Thank you.

    Bill Jordan: Thank you, and good evening
to everybody here. My name is Bill Jordan.
I'm from U.S. EPA in Washington and I'm
very glad to welcome all of you and join with
Jim Wells  in thanking you  very  much  for
coming to be here with us tonight.
    You know, so often people in Washington
talk at you  and to you and tell you rules and
laws and regulations. Tonight we want to turn
that around. We want to hear from you. We
want to talk particularly and hear from you
about the Worker Protection Standards that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
put in place to try to provide some basic
protection for agricultural workers—both the
people who apply pesticides  and the people
who work in the fields that have been treated
with pesticides.
   We  think this is  a very  important
regulation. There are over 3.5 million agricul-
                                                                              California  193

           tural workers and pesticide handlers in the
           United States. We have spent a lot of time
           trying to figure out what rules need to be put
           in place  so that those  people  can  use
           pesticides  and be around pesticide-treated
           areas safely and, at the same time, have it work
           for agriculture.   We  have  an  enormous
           challenge trying to do that because agriculture
           in the United States is quite different in
           different parts of the country. There are small
           businesses  and big businesses. There are row
           crops and tree crops and field crops. There
           are people who  work on the farm all year;
           there are  people who move from place to
           place.  There are people who speak many,
           many different languages and we are trying to
           find a way that will work well for everyone.
              Fortunately, we in the U.S. EPA are not
           alone. We have working with us the people in
           all of the states and I want  to  introduce
           tonight to you some of the people here in
           California who are our partners in making the
           WPS a success. You've already met Jim Wells,
           who  is the Director  of the   California
           Department of Pesticide Regulation.   Also
           here with  us at the front table are Maureen
           Lydon who is with the U.S. EPA in the Office
           of Enforcement  and Compliance Assurance;
           Pat Matter, who is with the University of
           California  Extension  Program in UC-Davis;
           Deanna Wieman, who is  with EPA's  San
           Francisco office working on pesticides, and I'll
           be talking in a moment a little bit more about
           Kay Rudolph, who  is also  from the  San
           Francisco  office  and will be facilitating the
              There  are other people from the state's
           and federal government here in the room and
I'd like to take a moment to introduce them
and ask them to stand up.  The reason to do
that is so that you can  see that we don't all
wear ties and coats and dresses; they have had
the good sense to dress more casually.  I'll
start with Bob Chavez (who has just taken off
his tie), who is with the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation.  Also from California
DPR  is  Dan Lynch.   From  the  Fresno
Agricultural  Commissioner's  Office, Doug
Edwards.   And  from  the   EPA,  Cathy
Kronopolus in Washington whose group is
particularly responsible  for writing the WPS
rules and policies.  With her is Jeanne Keying.
We have Kathy Taylor from the San Francisco
office; Mary Grisier, also  in the Pesticide
Section;  and Jeanne  Cevera.  Finally, Delta
Figueroa; she  is  from   the   Office  of
Environmental Justice  in  Washington, DC.
Jim reminds me that also  Ruth McHenry is
here from the District Office, as well.
   We've seen a lot of work to implement the
WPS.  A lot of hard work by people in the
government; certainly, but, more importantly,
by the people who are affected by it.  By the
growers and by the farmworker organizations
individuals who   have  spent  an enormous
amount  of time learning  about  a new
regulation, trying to put it into effect, trying to
make it work in their businesses and their daily
lives.  We have heard, over the course of the
last two years, a  number of things that have
not been as effective, as  successful, as they
could be and we  have tried to make changes.
I won't spend a lot of time talking about all of
the changes  that we have made, but we
certainly recognize that there is always a way
to make it better.  That's what we are here for
194  California

tonight; to hear from you what has worked,
what you think is successful about the WPS,
and we'd also like to hear from you what you
think needs to be changed so that it can work
better—so that it can be more effective, that it
can  cost  less, that it can provide  better
protection for farmworkers.  I guess I think
we spend a lot of time talking—I'm going to
stop and let Kay talk about the ground rules
for this evening. But let me just say again very
much how we thank you and appreciate the
fact that you have come to spend time with us
this  evening and to give us your thoughts.
They matter a lot to us and we look forward
to hearing them.

   Kay Rudolph:  Thank you, Bill.  I'll be
your facilitator tonight and I want to let you
know we expect the  meeting to run until
about 10:00; we'll be taking a break midway
through.  Mr. Jordan will let us all know. We
are going to be calling speakers in the order
that they signed in and so you have  a card
number. Just refer to that and we'll be calling
you out by name and number. Please face the
microphone when  you speak.  We'd like you
to keep your comments to five minutes. I will
be standing up at  the four-minute mark so
that you can be reminded that you are four
minutes into your  presentation. If you have
additional  remarks, we ask you  to  please
provide  written  comments  to   us.   We
welcome adding these comments to the public
record.  Please leave a copy of your remarks,
if you have brought some, at the front desk
where you registered.   You can  also send
comments to us and we have a card from
Jeanne Keying, so please take a copy of that
card if you would like to send comments later.
    If you  decide  at  any time during the
meeting that you would  like to  register to
provide comments here tonight, please just go
to the front desk and let them know that you
would like to give comments. Likewise, if you
were signed on to give comments and decide
riot to, when we call your name, just let us
    The translator  will  be  translating the
English comments  simultaneously.   The
Spanish comments, you  will come to the
podium and she will do alternate translations.
Other things that you might be interested in:
the restrooms are just outside down the hall
on the right, smoking is outside the building,
and we do want to let you know that the
materials on the front desk are free, so we
hope  that you will take those. Thank you.

    Ephraim Camacho: Good evening. My
name is Ephraim Camacho. I've noticed that,
don't  take any offense now, but could some of
that water be distributed back here? You are
thirsty back there, right?  Some of that water
could be distributed back here.  We would
appreciate that. You know farmworkers are
constantly with that problem—that they don't
have any water, enough drinking water in the
fields and this  we  should make a  good
example being that US EPA is here.
    I am employed with the California Rural
Legal  Assistance Migrant Farmworkers Project
in Fresno.  I've been in the office since 1980
working as a community worker. I personally
am also a farmworker and in the last three
years I went to work pruning trees by the
                                                                      California  195

           hour for two weeks during my  vacation,
           believe it or not. And, to my surprise, what I
           found out is that the toilets in the fields were
           non-existent.   It was not until  one of the
           workers themselves had to talk to the foreman
           is when  one was brought in.  You .are  not
           going to believe what I'm going to tell you. At
           lunchtime, the foreman started up a campfire
           to warm up the lunches.  He had a plastic
           container with the wording "Roundup."  He
           used it to store gasoline which was used to
           ignite the fire. This is just three years ago; you
           say, well,  three years ago the regulations were
           not adopted yet. I'm just making this point
           that sometimes even the foremen don't realize
           the danger in using containers that were once
           upon a time used for pesticides.
              Our office on a daily basis receives many
           telephone calls from farmworkers and other
           interested parties.  Some of those  calls  are
           regarding pesticide exposures which are...  I
           have some examples and here's one.  On May
           23,1995, a crew of 22 women became ill after
           entering  a seed alfalfa field that had been
           sprayed that evening,  May 22, approximately
           nine hours before. The crew did  not see any
           warning signs.  The crew was sent home for
           the day while some of the other workers were
           sent to the company doctor. Several of them
           were hospitalized.  Some of the women have
           never recovered from this exposure.  The
           employer was not cited because, according to
           the  King's County  Ag final investigative
           report, "Boswell Company had  no  way of
           knowing that the field had been treated with
           Monitor."  I  have  one copy of the inves-
           tigative report that I can present to the panel
           if they wish so.
    Another   incident:  April  16,  1996,
approximately six women  entered a green-
house without any protective gear.  They
complained about skin irritation. They were
taken to the company doctor for medical
treatment. Upon their return from the doctor
is when they were given the safety gear—two
things:  the overalls  and what  they  called
doctor gloves (thin white gloves) to protect
    Same site: on April 30, 1996, some of the
same crew members were again exposed  to
pesticides.   This  time they were  training
tomato plants in  one of the greenhouses.
Only two of the three women were taken  to
the company doctor and this is why—what the
forewoman told them— there's only appoint-
ments for two people that day. The women
were complaining of coughing and shortness
of breath.  As  soon as some of the other
workers found out that there were  some
complaints in this particular greenhouse, other
workers started complaining. They, too, were
saying that they had been poisoned during the
tomato  thinning season.  The names of the
pesticides they were exposed to (and these are
the  names they gave  me) were  Ridomil,
Orthene, Prime +, Maxim,  [Inaudible]... and
Temik. Their symptoms were headaches, skin
irritation, irritated eyes, nausea, weakness, flu-
like symptoms, and loss of memory.  The
Merced  County Ag Commissioner's Office is
conducting an investigation on this matter.
    This year in June our office received a
telephone call from some workers in Kern
County.  They were working in the grapes
handling a  chemical  which  they  were
unfamiliar with. They were complaining about
198  California

headaches, nausea, and vomiting.  The clue, I
found out later after talking to the employer,
was that the workers were treating the grapes
with gerbrilic acid.  It's not a pesticide, I know.
The employer then  agreed  to inform the
workers  about the  symptoms of the acid.
However, he stated that he wanted to wait to
provide the workers training until later in the
season when more workers were hired.
    There are many other horror stories like
this. Farmworkers continue  to suffer either
because of someone's honest mistake or they
just don't care about the health  of migrant
seasonal farmworkers.

    Kay Rudolph:  Excuse me, Mr. Camacho,
I'm afraid that our time is up.  If you could
give us your additional comments, we would
like to include them in the written record, if
that -would be possible.

    Mr. Camacho: Thank you very much.

    Leticia Maravilla [Speaking in Spanish with
English interpreter]: Good evening, my name
is Leticia Maravilla. I hope I can have the five

    Kay  Rudolph:  We'll  have  Ms.  Rubio
translate and will not count the translation

    Leticia Maravilla: OK. I'm here to testify
concerning the pesticides. Because I am one
of the •workers there that has been affected by
these  pesticides,  along with  my  working
companions. Last Monday I went into a field
that had been sprayed a 4:00 that morning.  I
started working at 5:30 and it  seemed like
nothing had been done concerning that.  I
have been working for 16 years in the fields in
the United States.  My feet are rotten because
of pesticides, because I work in the lettuce and
the soil fall on my feet.  I have never seen
those agencies that are supposed to protect us
against pesticides do anything. I have gone to
Washington to give these testimonies. In '96
I was poisoned  at John Harris'  and the
reactions  I   have—I'm  not going to  be
embarrassed, I will show you so you can see
that my testimony is real. I can't have steady
work because chemicals are  killing me.  Up
until now there has been no  agency that has
done anything for the farmworkers excepting
for CRLA [California Rural Legal Assistance].
   I have an appointment for Friday. They
have already  found many chemicals in my
body.   My eyesight is bad  because of the
chemicals. And the ones responsible are the
state and the agencies. I only get five minutes,
but then after all one has to pay for all these
people  sitting  here.   We do  our duty to
government  by  paying  our   taxes  but
government does not fulfill its duty to us, and
here is proof and I will bring  more. Many of
my  companions  have  children  that are
deformed and this isn't  just  five minutes—it
means more than this.  Would one of you like
to have a deformed child because of chemicals
and receive $500 a month and stay quiet and
take it?  Excuse me, but we are paying a high
price to have you sitting there  and speaking to
us. Thank you.

   Lori Rottenberg:  It's very  difficult to
follow a moving testimony like that; but my
                                                                       California  197

           name is Lori Rottenberg and I work with the
           Association  of  Farmworker  Opportunity
           Programs. I came here today representing the
           National    Farmworker    Environmental
           Education Program.  Our program helps
           growers  in  12 states  across  the  country
           maintain a safe, healthy, more productive
           work force by providing farmworkers with
           high-quality,  bilingual, interactive  pesticide
           safety training free of charge.  We are able to
           do this through a unique partnership with the
           AmeriCorps,  which  is  a program which
           provides college scholarships for people who
           volunteer for a year of community service.
           I've got a bunch of my AmeriCorps members
           here with me today because our program has
           such a heavy emphasis in California. Twenty-
           five  of  our 68 Ameri-Corps   members
           nationwide are in  California—stationed  in
           offices in northern California as well as central
           California and in the area that we are in
           tonight  Over half of the 45,000 farmworkers
           who we  trained in pesticide  safety in  1995
           were in the  State of California, so  it's very
           important to us to be here tonight.
              What we've found through our experience
           is that we've had the most success in areas of
           California where ag commissioners and county
           extension agents have actively supported our
           program and passed the word  along to the
           growers that they serve and  represent.  In
           areas where  there  has been  less support,
           growers have been slower to  take on the
           required training responsibilities that they have
           under the WPS. But I'm going to  let our
           members speak for themselves and tell you
           more about our program's experience with the
    Let me state at the outset that although we
were asked to share our problems with the
WPS and some of the things that we've seen
out in the field and the very real experiences
such as  the one which was just described to
us, our program does prove that there can be
some kind of dialogue, some kind of solution,
to the very real issue of pesticide safety and
that there can be a win-win kind of a solution
for both growers and for farmworkers. Thank

    Lisa Aleman  [Speaking in Spanish with
English  interpreter]: Good afternoon.  My
name is Lisa Aleman.  I am a  member of
AmeriCorps and I work in Proteus in Selma.
First of all, I want to thank you the organizing
committee, EPA, to provide these moments
for me so I can share my experiences with the
farmworkers as a volunteer worker and to tell
you what we are doing in Fresno, King's,
Tulane, and Kern counties. The training that
we  provide is complete information because
we  cover all 11 points  of the  WPS.  My
experience with  the  farmworkers is very
positive because we encourage them to take
part in the training. We motivate them with
dynamics so that learning can be effective for
everyone.  We keep in mind to keep these
dynamics  simple and easy so that they can
learn  and  remember  how  to  protect
themselves.    We   have  hours  at  the
convenience   of  the   ranchers   or  the
contractors.  We can also provide lists or
copies with the names of these people who
have  taken  the training  with  numbers
corresponding to the EPA cards.  Thank you,
and we're here to serve you.
198  California

    Mary Baurista: Good evening everyone.
I'm glad that we have a translator here today
because I think it's really important that all
farmworkers understand what we're here for.
Hello, my name is Mary Bautista and for the
last two years I have been providing pesticide
safety training to  farmworkers  for  the
Proteus/AmeriCorps program in the Vasilla
area.     During  this  time  I  have  met
farmworkers of different ages, races, and
experiences. Even though I had worked as a
farmworker when I was younger, I -was very
lucky that I never suffered an illness related to
pesticide exposure.  On the other hand, I have
spoke with farmworkers who have had bad
experiences  with pesticides but have  never
made a report  because of the  fear of being
fired  or because  of the language barrier.
    For example, one man who walked into
our office for pesticide safety training told us
that he was never trained appropriately on
how to apply pesticides, since it was his boss
that trained him and neither one of them was
bilingual.  So the worker could not ask his
boss any questions.  Basically, his boss showed
him how to  mix and apply but was unable to
explain the hazards of the job.   One day the
worker was getting  ready to apply  the
pesticides and one of the pumps blew out of
place, spraying pesticides onto his body. He
immediately felt a burning sensation all over
his body and his work partner quickly took
him to get washed off and drove him to the
hospital where the doctor gave him a cream
and released him. That was one year ago, and
he  asked me if I wanted to see some of his
burns and I responded by saying no.  That
was because of the fear; I didn't want to see
his burn marks.  But he insisted and he took
his shoes off, removed his socks, and showed
me his feet. I was truly shocked to see his feet
with burn marks and his skin was still peeling
off. I am not a medical expert but it seems to
me that this worker is still suffering from the
result of this pesticide injury. This accident
might not have happened  had this worker
been  trained in  his own  language and by a
person who had the expertise to train workers
in a correct and appropriate manner.
    As a bilingual pesticide safety trainer, I
always make sure the workers can understand
the information  and encourage them to  ask
their employers  questions when they don't
understand something. I feel that I am a good
resource, not only for the workers but also for
the growers and contractors in case that I can
assist them in having a safe and a healthy work
force. Thank you.

    Javier Borboa: Good evening everybody.
My name  is Javier  Borboa and this  is  my
second  year as an AmeriCorps  member
providing pesticide safety training and working
in the West Fresno area. One of the biggest
problems  that I see regarding the  Worker
Protection Standard is the  lack of bilingual
personnel available to enforce the regulations.
I would like to  see someone  checking  the
fields where farmworkers are working to make
sure that  they  have received  the proper
training before working in any areas that have
been sprayed with pesticides.  Some workers
have  complained to  me that  it has been
difficult for them to complain about abuses in
the fields because there is not bilingual staff
to take the workers' complaints. They also
                                                                       California  199

           have told me that it is discouraging for them
           to try to complain because usually they are
           working between the hours of 8 to 5 when the
           office is open for workers to file complaints.
              I believe all the training should be given in
           the farmworkers' native language and that
           questions and concerns regarding safe working
           practices  should be addressed by bilingual
           trainers who can understand the workers, not
           by those who may only be able  to guess what
           they are  trying to communicate.  Another
           issue is that there is no assistant to monitor
           the quality of training sessions. Some workers
           have told me that they were already trained
           and that the training took place in half an
           hour which, to me, is not enough to cover the
           11 points  of the WPS.   In  other words,
           farmworkers are getting the training but the
           training is  not detailed enough in how to
           protect themselves  from  pesticide residue.
           Our training takes about an hour and we go
           over very clearly all of the information in the
           flip chart. We always use visuals and pass out
           prizes as fun incentives for the workers to
           answer the questions. We can train workers
           day or night and we are always open to any
           grower or  contractor to visit one of   our
           training sessions before scheduling training
           with us. Thank you.

              Eduardo Barriga:  Good evening to the
           panel and people here. My name is Eduardo
           Barriga and I'm very much concerned about
           farmworkers'  welfare.     Therefore,   I'm
           convinced  that the  WPS is an essential and
           effective way to bring awareness of pesticide
           safety to the farmworker community.   For
           instance, an instructor's assistant at a Sutter
County preschool was trained in  pesticide
safety.  She then transmitted that information
to her husband, who is a farmworker in that
area.  She emphasized to her husband the
importance of avoiding contact with their only
child  after work  because of  the  risk of
contaminating the child with pesticide residue
that might be present on his clothing. Before,
the farmworker husband would arrive home
from work and greet his spouse and child with
hugs and other family gestures and eventually
play with his child for a  while and  then,
afterwards, shower.   Now, as a result, the
spouse  reminds her  husband to clean up
before any contact with their child or with
   As a second-year AmeriCorps member, I
have seen  and heard how pesticide awareness
information can have a great impact on the
farmworker families, thus creating, eventually,
healthier living conditions for them and their
immediate family members. Thank you.

   Jorge  Beltran:   Good evening.  I'll just
keep this very brief. My name is Jorge Beltran
and I am here representing myself. I think the
need has already been stated very dramatically
and very graphically by the lady out here. So
what I really want to  do is congratulate and
thank the  EPA for the efforts in forming the
WPS as well as the California OPR for finally
ceasing their whining about, who should get
credit for  what.  However, I cannot help but
think that if all negotiations had been done
under  115-degree weather with miles already
behind their  steps and unsanitary working
conditions,   this    would   have   been
accomplished long ago. I believe that there are
200  California

those who have stopped seeing and treating
farmworkers as  another commodity and
begun to see them as fellow humans with the
same needs and wants that all of us expect for
decent  hard work.   They are  not the
disposable masses that we believe them to be.
I think that this is the least that we can do and
the least that they deserve.
    Other things that we should do to see that
this gets done is to ensure that the level of
enforcement for noncompliance with the
regulations increases so that it may provide
results and that all this undertaking does not
stagnate in political circles. Thank you.

    Carlos  Lara:  Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen of the panel. My names is Carlos
Lara.  I am an AmeriCorps member with
Proteus serving in  the King's County area
providing  pesticide  safety training to the
farmworkers.  I believe that the new WPS are
a good  idea and strongly feel that it should
continue   to   be   mandatory  for  the
farmworkers to be trained prior to working
out in areas where they run the risk of coming
in  contact with  harmful   residues  and
    My  job for the last year and a half has
been to provide farmworkers with the worker
training required by the WPS and to  make
sure  that  all  the  information is  easily
understood by  our trainees or the field
workers. Through our personal outreach and
close contact with the farmworkers, we have
learned  first-hand how to effectively  teach
low-literacy workers.  We have found the best
way for the WPS training to be conducted is
by a live presentation; in other words, to have
a real person do the training and not just have
the workers see a video. This method, which
we use  in our program, promotes two-way
communication  involving  questions  and
answers. We use demonstrations and visuals
in addition to the EPA flip chart and, unlike
the video, the farmworkers can ask questions
on the spot and get their answers right then
and there.
   One of the problems I see with using the
training  videos  is   that  many  of the
farmworkers have told us that they can't
follow the information as fast as it is  given
sometimes, so much  of the information is
missed.  I realize that the videos are easier to
administer, but the purpose of the WPS is
completely thrown out the window if the
workers can't understand or follow the videos
because they lack the effectiveness that only a
real person can provide. The bottom line is
that  it is better to have workers trained by a
certified person than just throw a videotape in
the VCR and walk away thinking that it's the
worker's  problem   to   make   sure  he
understands everything on the video.  So we
at Proteus can also help growers save time and
energy by providing them with rosters of their
workers who were trained and issued the EPA
cards. We also help growers and contractors
by   providing  the   workers   with   EPA
handbooks and at times we have donated
long-sleeved shirts for them to wear at work.

   Randy Semple: Hi. I think some of you
have already spoken with me or are familiar
with  my situation.   I wish I could speak
Spanish so I could speak directly with some of
                                                                       California  201

           the people who aren't English-speaking at this
              What I'd like to address is the absence of
           good faith.  None of the laws or none of the
           programs or none of the government entities
           are going to be able to regulate anything in
           this society, including morality, laws, safety,
           without good faith. You are going to have to
           have a lot more enforcement than you have, a
           lot more people in the field, without the good
           faith of the people who are supposedly being
           educated.  I've  run into the  fact that the
           educators are, themselves, lacking good faith.
           I graduated from Fresno State University in
           1981.  I've been a crop technician since 1983.
           I've been around pesticides for a long time.
           I've trained people around pesticides.
              But I've discovered in the absence of
           actually following through with those safety
           programs and  laws that none of this means
           anything. It's just too hard for all of you to
           enforce this. I realize that. The bureaucratic
           terminology that I've gotten over the last five
           months is  I allegedly  dump chemicals.   I
           allegedly also had a seizure and was in the
           hospital  for four days with  a  grand mal
           seizure. I attempted to handle everything in-
           house. I tried to contact the  school.  The
           school has a public safety office—occupational
           health  and safety—an  obvious misnomer
           because I tried to contact them for 18 days
           after  I got out  of the  hospital,  with no
           response. I wrote certified letters;  no res-
           ponse. The cover-up became the action. In
           order to recognize my illness and my reaction
           to the pesticides, they had to recognize their
           responsibility  and their  complicity  in the
           actions taken  and the attitudes were more
  repulsive and more damaging that the actual
  pesticides themselves.  When you are injured
  and you expect that your fellow worker or
  your employer is going to take care of you
  when you're unconscious or in this hospital
  and when in fact they turn their backs on you
  and try to cast the blame and disassociate with
  you,  it is more damaging than anything else.
     And I just wish to tell everybody that if
  you are going to be a whistle-blower, if you're
  going to speak out and say, "I am injured" or
  "This is  not safe," be prepared to lose your
  job, be prepared for retaliation because I have
  called unlimited entities, government agencies,
  private agencies, individuals that are working
  for safety awareness, etc., and many of those
  doors or  many of those  phones  weren't
  answered to me or disinterest was there. And
  I found it really—I was really afraid for the
  people that didn't  have  the tenacity or the
  awareness  to not take no for an answer, to
  keep going.  I eventually had  to  write a
  certified letter and give them my nine-page
  written statement regarding these incidents. I
  sent it to the Chancellor's Office, Dan Bartell,
  the Dean of Agriculture; Cy  Bader;  Gino
  Fasagasto, the individual  that had me spray
  these pesticides.  I sent it to Lt. King of Public
  Safety at Fresno State. I sent certified on June
  10th. After that I waited until June 27th
  before  I  went  public  to the  newspaper
  because  I figured five months was enough to
  be ignored and have my situation ignored and
  for no one to even respond to any of this. So
  people have my deepest sympathies who have
' • to work in the fields every day and be more
  afraid of losing their job than they are of
202  California

 having their  families  safe.   Thank  you.

    Celia Prado: Good evening, my name is
 Celia Prado and I work with the California
 Institute fpr Rural Studies. Over a period of
 four weeks I  conducted an informal study
 asking farmworkers whether they had been
 trained.  My first question to them was, "Do
 you know anything about the EPA?"   My
 second question was, "What do you know
 about the WPS?"  My third question was
 "Have  you received  the  pesticide safety
 training?"  What I found out was that out of
 115 farmworkers that I interviewed, only 37
 had received the training. I could go on and
 on telling you  the facts that I found out but
 you may see a copy of my report—I have a
 copy for anyone who is interested.  What I
would really like to say is that there needs to
 be more coordination with Cal OSHA, Ag
 Commissioner Office  ...[Taping suspended
while tape was changed]
    ... Farmworkers continue to  be abused,
 farmworkers continue to be unprotected, and
the  people  who  are  supposed   to  be
representing us are not doing their job. I
could tell you  horror stories of people who
have been in  contact with pesticides, who
have been exposed to pesticides.  For the last
two years I coordinated a health promoters
program. Twenty promoters came back every
week with stories such as Leticia Maravilla's
story and it's shocking. There is absolutely no
one who  is willing  to stand up for  the
farmworker. There is no one who is willing to
help the farmworker. Insurance companies,
lawyers, no one will take their case.  People are
 dying. We are trying to get rid of pests with
 the  pesticides and  people are dying like
 animals and we're not doing anything about it.
 That is my plea to you. I hope that the EPA's
 efforts...This is great that you are taking the
 time to listen to what people have to say, and
 I really appreciate this and I'm with all my
 brothers and sisters; I work for them and I
 care a lot about them. And so we wish to ask
 that you  please, please  look into this huge
 problem in California. Thank you. [Applause]

    Luis  Magafia [Speaking in Spanish with
 English interpreter]: Good afternoon.  My
 name is Luis Magana.   I am representing a
 migrating farmworker organization  north of
 San   Joaquin  Valley—a   farm   laborers'
 organization. One person said one time how
 fortunate Mexico is to have the United States
 as a neighbor. I say now how fortunate the
 farmers are to have this influx of migrant
workers who have no rights.  As we have seen
 in the last few years, the increment in millions
 of  pounds  of pesticides  in the  fields of
 California,  farmworkers   numbers   have
 increased  in the same way.   I'll give an
example  of a worker named Raul—he was
infected by pesticides -while he was a foreman
for a crew in asparagus.  Obviously, also the
workers,   many  of them  undocumented
workers from Oaxaca and  Guatemala, this
happened in San Joaquin County.  A week ago
we went  to  the office of the Agriculture
Commissioner. No one spoke Spanish except
for. one of the secretaries, that did not speak it
right, Angela. They told us there was a price
for the records that would include the exact
place where  the person was infected.  He
                                                                      California  203

           stayed because he has been working 30 years
           in all kinds of farm work.  The others—you
           know where they are, and were also affected.
           We called seven offices in the Central Valley.
           Only one county had an inspector that spoke
           Spanish, with the exception of one biologist
           that is used like an interpreter, but he's from
           another county. Here in Fresno they told us,
           "That's classified information" and they could
           not tell us  anything.   You proved this
           yesterday with migrant farmworkers that these
           offices are not known to the farmworkers.  In
           our organization it is a shame that we work
           with the farmworkers that have been affected
           as if we were in a fascist nation  because we
           protect the workers from retaliation.
              The responsibility of educating, training
           and informing the workers  is that  of the
           agriculture or the farmer. Other groups are
           doing good work—for example, the things that
           we've heard here today. They are doing good
           work.  But let us not forget that the farmer is
           the one who is responsible. And that is where
           the  norms   for  the  protection  of  the
           farmworker or WPS should be implemented
           and the objective is that the farmer is the one
           who is responsible. I have more information,
           but I will share this with you later.  Thank you.

              Alicia Medina: Good evening, my name is
           Alicia Medina and  I am  representing the
           AmeriCorps  program and I'm stationed with
           Proteus in Delano.  I graduated from Cal State
           Bakersfield in Liberal  Studies  and  I am
           currently a certified pesticide safety  trainer.
           While working in the fields I was exposed to
           pesticides. One of the symptoms I had was
           dizziness and rashes. I do not know the cause
of those symptoms.  After working for about
three weeks, I told my contractor and he not
only told me to go to the doctor,  but asked
why I did not say anything earlier.  At that
time I did not know those symptoms were
possible effects of pesticide exposures.  If I
had been trained in the WPS, I might have
recognized those symptoms immediately as
being possibly pesticide-related and I could
have received medical attention a lot quicker.
    Recently a farmworker in the Lament area
was told by a grower to come to work dressed
with two pairs of pants, two shirts, and five
handkerchiefs because she was going to be
working in a very ugly field full of weeds. She
went to work  dressed  this  way and while
working she and a number of her coworkers
began to feel faint and their eyes were very
irritated and watery.  Not until she attended
our pesticide safety  class did she realize that
she was probably exposed to pesticides and
had been asked to work before the re-entry
date had expired. I am sure that the next time
she is asked to wear double clothing she will
refuse in order to protect her health.  I feel
that the information that  we provide the
workers regarding the safe usage  of home
pesticides  and  the  danger  of allowing our
children to play  in irrigation water is very
valuable for farmworkers to know. It also
helps the growers and contractors because we
know that they do not want their workers to
get sick either. Thank you.

    Maria Romero:  Good evening ladies and
gentlemen.  My name is Maria Romero and I
represent AmeriCorps from Merced County.
I would like  to share my experiences  in
204  California

have someone already trained to train their
field workers. I do not give up. I go out there
and I find out that the ones that the growers
have trained are the crew leaders, the foremen,
or the pesticide  applicators.  A lot of those
people, the farmworkers who are  pesticide
applicators, only receive the pesticide training
that we give, it's not the extensive one. So, I
do not give up. I go to the farm labor camps,
to the  migrant family housing and I train
    I found out another thing.  Farmworkers
are reluctant—While training them and when
they ask questions and when I answer their
questions regarding pesticide safety, they do
not report any symptoms regarding pesticide
exposure because of the fear that they are
going to be laid off or fired from their jobs.  I
have an example.  There is a man who was
working one summer sorting chili  peppers.
Those chili peppers contained some type of
pesticide that got on his arms and got on his
neck and he developed a really bad rash.  He
went to the hospital because he more or less
knew what to do. He went to the hospital and
he  said, "I got this rash  from working out
there in the pesticide, sorting chili peppers."
When he went back to work, the grower (she's
the owner there), she said, "I'm sorry, Mr.
Joaquin, but  I have replaced you with
someone else."  And that is very sad.  That
does not have to be.  Farmworkers should not
fear that they should be laid off or fired from
their jobs, because without the farmworker we
will not have the fruit or the vegetables at our
tables.  I see that it is not  that hard—they pay
their workers' compensation.  I mean, they
have a right to use it but people are out there
and they do not want to come forward and
say anything.  I'm just out there as a pesticide
safety instructor and make sure that they are
aware—you know, that they dress properly for
work and that they take care of themselves,
that they wash their hands and I  go through
the whole 11 points of the EPA flip chart and
I make sure that they understand,  that they
aren't misinformed, that because of a lot of
situations  that we face...I have something—a
very important letter in writing from our
Central Valley Opportunities Center there in
Merced County which is housing AmeriCorps
there. So I will give you this later.  Thank you
very much for  your attention.  Thank you.

    Kay Rudolph:  Have all the people who
wish to speak had  a chance to register? We
want to make sure that we do get a chance to
hear from everybody who has anything they
would like to say and, again, if people would
prefer to provide written comments, you can
leave it with us tonight. If you would like to
send it to us later, we have a card with an
address on it where you can send it.  Thank

    Bill Jordan:  There are people here,  in
particular Senor Camacho, who did  not get a
chance to finish his  remarks. And if there are
others who have things they would like to say,
listening to what you have heard, we can... I
think  we  have the  time to  have  more
conversation if people would like to speak.
    Ephraim  Camacho:   Thank you very
much.  My final comments were as follows. I
was going to say that the WPS laws must have
                                                                       California  205

              Ephraim Camacho:   Thank you  very
           much. My final comments were as follows.  I
           was going to say that the WPS laws must have
           teeth in them in order to protect farmworkers
           who many times put their lives on the line to
           place food on  our kitchen tables. We  need
           more   monitoring  by  the   local  county
           Agriculture  Commissioner's office.  During
           the seasons (we have several seasons; as some
           of you already know:  the grape, the  stone
           fruit, lettuce, tomato, and other major crops
           that we have in this area), that •would at least
           help  to hopefully alleviate  some of the
           problems  that have  been   discussed this
           evening as far  as workers being exposed to
           pesticides.    We  also believe  that  what
           AmeriCorps is doing regarding the training of
           farmworkers is an excellent work—not only
           educating  farmworkers  but  farm  labor
           contractors and growers. But I think that, just
           like everybody else, we all need to be held
           accountable to someone. And I think that's
           pretty much the bottom line. EPA, growers,
           and farm labor contractors  all  have  to be
           accountable for any mistakes that are done. If
           EPA is not enforcing the  laws then they
           should be accountable for not performing
           their jobs as required.
              The CRLA Foundation staff prepared and
           submitted formal written comments on the
           proposed regulations of the WPS and that  is
           basically what my final comments were.  I'd be
           glad  to answer any  questions  from the
           audience or the EPA panel and I'd like to give
           you my toll-free number, we  have a toll-free
           number where  farmworkers can call us if you
           have any questions regarding our legal services
           office here in Fresno. My toll-free number is
1-800-242-2752 and our office does provide
free  legal  services  to migrant and  seasonal
farmworkers. Thank you very much.

   Leticia Maravilla [Speaking in Spanish with
English interpreter]:  We're  talking about
pesticides  and  we  notice that you're  not
conscious  of this: They said on TV that the
strawberries have poison on them.  I ate some
strawberries; I  had a stomach ache and I
threw  up, dizziness. Watermelon  also has
these poisons and I don't see anybody doing
anything concerning these chemicals.  Randy
Jonshon is a rancher that grows  chilies and
watermelons and he cut a watermelon and
gave us and made us sick and he offered it to
all the -workers and what was the reaction?
Where is the information that you brought in
Spanish, because I  don't want to offend you,
but you all came to listen to my testimony.
Where is the information in Spanish?  In the
fields there are no gringos, we are latinos.
And be conscious that the [Inaudible] ...what
we do is contaminated and go to your table
and  you have no  idea how poisoned it is.
Please consider, you are human beings just as
we aire. We are offended, that state is going to
pay a lot,-  all the poisonings.  We don't have
MedCal, we don't have insurance, the state will
have to pay.  We are offended by what you are
doing to us. Thank you.

    Domingo Zapata: My name's Domingo
Zapata.    I work  with three  nonprofit
organizations that provide services for farm-
workers.  I have been training farmworkers,
I'm trained through the EPA program using,
through Pat Matter, the IPM program to
206  California

provide these trainings as well. I work for a
medical facility and constantly when I go out
and do the farm safety activities, we find that
a  lot of farms are doing some types  of
   One question I have for you  is,  one
speaker training 200 people for one hour—do
you consider that training? That's a question
that I just wanted to pose, because I've seen
that happen where one person is training over
200 people and you've got people in the back
who are talking and doing their own little
thing.  I did a survey of 50 farmworkers and
asked them if they had been trained through
the WPS.  One in 15 said they had.  I was
shocked to see that many people were not
aware of this WPS  or  training.  Those  that
have been trained are telling me that it's a very
beneficial, very helpful program.  They say
positive things about it. Those that haven't
been trained are indicating to me that they will
be fired if they do anything about it. Their
fear is reprisals, as  we talked about earlier
today. . There's  definitely a lot of positive  in
providing  these types of training, in  my
opinion. The only thing is that not everybody
is providing the training.  There are a lot of
good  farms  and  farmworkers  and labor
contractors that are doing the best they can.
But there's a great  deal more that are not.
Thank you.

   Speaker  from Audience  [Speaking in
Spanish with English interpreter]:  Thank you
again.  After hearing the comments from Mr.
Zapata, I remembered something that we do
in AmeriCorps. We are calling on contractors
and growers and we are asking that the groups
that we train should be from 20 to 25 people
because I know that the materials that we are
using have been approved by EPA.  The book
that we use, I don't know the name of it, flip
chart, we make sure that they can see it and
they understand it. Thank you.

    Luis Magana  [Speaking in  Spanish  with
English interpreter]:  There are two photos,
please look at the photos.  Both photographs
show two farmworkers spraying herbicides.
First I will talk about the color photo.  The
other one is black-and-white.  In the color
photo the farmworkers are from the San
Joaquin County.  They  are spraying the grass
around the walnut orchard. They say that
they did not receive training to do this.  All
they were shown  how to do was how to run
the equipment, how to run the tractor, etc.
They were given gloves and masks but nobody
told them that they should wear it. Now this
shows that  they  are farmworkers  without
documents and they make minimum wages of
$4.25 per hour. They commented that their
farmer doesn't have big farms and that they
know nothing about the protection through
    In the other photo—the black-and-white—
we see a worker that's •well-equipped and he's
doing the same kind of work in an almond
orchard in Fresno County. He says  he did
receive  training on how to use this clothing
and equipment to  do this work. He works at
this ranch steady  and he has been working
there for many years.  He's not a migrant
worker; he's there permanent  He says  they
pay him more or less OK and he's happy.  It's
                                                                      California  207

          a large farm  or farmer; I think it's Harris
          Ranch.  He knows about the protection rules.
              In our organization we're doing a survey
          and we've passed out some forms which we
          will collect and present to you tomorrow. We
          saw a great difference between farmworkers in
          Lodi and the farmworkers that live at the
          migrant camps in the state. What everybody
          does agree on is that all these protections for
          the farmworkers should be implemented. It's
          easier for those that are here legally to get this
          information but those that are here illegally,
          it's  very  difficult for  them to  receive this
          information. I regret to say that they stopped
          funding to provide legal  services to those
          people with no  documents. This is too bad
          because  part  of the  education  or  the
          training—these people should also receive the
          laws and how they can be affected  by  these
          pesticides. And they should know their legal
          rights.  Thank you.

              Salvador Sandoval: My name is  Salvador
          Sandoval  and  I'm  a  family practitioner in
          Merced County and I've worked with migrant
          farmworkers for about 16 years. I'm also a
          member of the National Advisory Council on
          Migrant Health.  I'm glad to see you here. I'm
          glad to see that after such a long delay there is
          finally a national  standardfor farmworkers that
          deals with pesticides.  I wanted to address
          certain concerns that I have primarily on the
          exceptions that are weakening the WPS.  I just
          noticed another one in this material that I had
          gotten recently and this is, for example, about
          not having to have soap, water, and paper
          towels   for  certain  chemicals  that are
           considered less  toxic.  I ask you, what does
that really mean? We're dealing with acute
toxicity but we know that are chemicals that
have  longer-term  effects  and  there are
chemicals that cause,  for example, skin rashes.
They may not be considered as dangerous as
some of the organophosphates. It seems like
this is really a poor economic move, because
soap and water and paper towels really should
be available anywhere. As I understand it, the
sanitation standards require such measures so
I'm real confused about why  this is being
presented as an exception.
    I  have just  brief comments on other
exceptions to the rule.  For example, there's a
5-day grace period before workers  are trained.
I've found workers  that have been poisoned
on the first day. One gentleman that was
crushing  cans and  didn't  know what the
chemicals were became ill.  I'm concerned
about the training interval being five years. As
a physician  I have to be recertified every year
or every two years  for  certain standards to
keep up rny information.  Workers that are
just getting one hour of information, I think
their recall is going to be very poor.  I think it
should be more often—every year, preferably.
Thank you.  I really didn't come prepared but
I wanted to deal with these exceptions which
I think weaken an otherwise good law.

    Bertha Lopez: Good evening. My name
is Bertha Lopez. This is the first time I've
ever been to any of these kinds of meetings.
Just listening to this brings a lot of questions
to my mind.  I want to leave you with this
question. What's going to happen if we don't
enforce these laws to give the training and the
education from the  rancher, the supervisors,
208  California

 the contractors, that they need so that the
 farmworkers can be protected?  If we don't
 protect them, what's going to happen when
 they start disappearing, when they get sick,
 when they can no longer do the picking of the
 fields or do anything for us? Who's going to
 do it?  You and I?  I don't think so.  I have
 asthma; I can't even stand the dust in my own
 home.  Could you imagine if I went out to a
 field?  And I feel for these people, because
 they work hard. And these ranchers get rich
 by what they are doing. If they don't go out
 there and do it; who is going to do it? So they
 need all this  protection and I think that we
 owe this to them, to at least protect them and
 give them the right training and the education
 everybody needs to protect the workers out
 there in the fields. Thank you.

   Joaquin Diaz [Speaking in Spanish with
 English  interpreter]:  Good  afternoon  to
 everyone. My name is Joaquin Diaz.  I want
 to make a comment.  Well, it's somewhat
 related with what is being said here. I have a
 lot of questions concerning the job that I do,
 myself.  I think that I'm exposing myself on
 my work, in  my job, with asbestos.  And I
would like to know or to be given information
 if someone here... Is there someone here who
 can give me information on this? Someone
 that could  tell me how dangerous this is?
Because I understand that  it's  very bad to
 one's  health.   Up to now I have not found
 anyone that can give me information on this.
This is what I'm asking.
   And something else that does pertain to
what's being said here, I want to comment--
it's going  to  be   brief—concerning  the
pesticides. My comment is as follows:  how
expensive is it to be ignorant?  Are you saying
the people who work in the fields who are not
educated, is that being  ignorant?   How
expensive is that?  I think,  myself, that is
sometimes  called  ignorance  and  maybe
because one has no education, one works in
the fields.  Is that a sin? Nobody wants to be
working this  way  and have these health
problems.   And, again, what price are we
paying  for  working  in the  fields?   Is it
ignorance?  Thank you for listening to  me.

    Bill Jordan:  Thank  you all  for your
comments. They have been very, very helpful.
Let me tell you a bit about what we will do.
We are having these meetings around  the
country.  We have  had them in Florida, in
Washington  State,  in  Texas, Mississippi,
Pennsylvania, we will be going to other parts
of the country still.  We will take the stories
that you  have told  us,  we  will  take  the
information that you have collected and given
to us, we will take the letters that you have
written and we will study them carefully.  We
will work with our partners in the states to try
to  find answers  to  make the  regulations
stronger and better, to  make the enforcement
appropriate so that every farm, not just some
but every farm, is following the rules.
   Tonight many of you have told stories for
yourself, for your brothers and sisters who
have been exposed  to pesticides, who have
been  hurt by  them.  We  all know  that
pesticides are dangerous if they are not used
carefully and properly. We also know that
training can make a very big difference in the
                                                                       California  209

          way that pesticides are used. It can make the
          difference between being safe and being dan-
          gerous. It can make the difference between
          being hurt or being well. Many, many of the
          stories  that were told  tonight show how
          important good training is. And the stories--
          particularly of the AmeriCorps workers who
          have been here  in the Valley working with
          growers, working with farmworkers in their
          homes, in their camps, in the fields, teaching
          them—have shown how you can be a success.
          And that  is what we want to find  a way  to
          have happen, not just in a few places with a
          few farms, but everywhere in the country.
              We know there are many places that are
          doing a good job. We also know that there
          are places where a better job can be done and
          we who  work  for you—whether  it be  in
          Washington or in San Francisco or in Sacra-
mento or in Fresno or in Merced or around
the state or the country—want to try to be
accountable, to be responsible to do our job
so that you can all do your jobs safely.
   Tonight we will stay here and talk with
you, listen to your  stories, answer  your
questions.  We have materials outside  that
help to explain how to use pesticides safely in
English and in Spanish and we hope you will
take them, we hope you will give them to your
friends to study and to learn so that they can
be as safe as possible.
   We'll take a break now and be around to
answer your questions. Let me close by saying,
again, thank you very, very much.

    [Meeting adjourned]
210  California

Registered Participants in the Fresno Public Meeting
Lisa Aleman

Eduardo Barriga

Mary Bautista

Jorge Beltran

Javier Borboa

Ephraim Camacho
California Rural Legal Assistance

Roy Castrillo
Western Growers

Silvia Ceja

Joaquin Diaz de Leon

Robert Enos
Western Farm Service

Jenny H. Estrada

Marco Figueroa
Western Farmers Insurance Co.
Dolores Flores

Agostino Cru2 Gutierrez

Alvin Humphrey
USDA-Agriculture Research Service

Scott M. Kenedy
Kingsburg, CA

Carlos Lara

Bertha D. Lopez
California Rural Legal Assistance

Luis Magana
Organizacion de Trabajadores Agricolas de

Leticia Maravilla
California Rural Legal Assistance

Ruth McHenry
Assemblyman Cruz Bustamente

Alicia Medina

Celia H. Prado
California Institute for Rural Studies
                                                                California 211

          Humberto Rodas
          Radio Bilingue

          Salvador Romero
          AmeriCorps/Central Valley Opportunity
          Center (CVOC)

          Maria Romero

          Lori Rottenberg
          Association of Farmworker Opportunity

          Leticia Sanchez
Salvador Sandoval
National Advisory Council on Migrant

Randy Semple
Cal State University, Fresno

Steve Smith
University of California

Paul Sweet
Western Farm Service

Domingo Zapata
United Health Center
212 California

Transcript of Public Meeting
Salinas, California
July 25,1996
              Dr. Lynn Goldman; We are going to get
           started now with our public meeting on EPA's
           pesticide Worker Protection Standard. To get
           us going, I'm going to turn to Kay Rudolph.
           She is "with the Environmental Protection
           Agency in our Region 9 Office.  She will be
           our facilitator for the meeting tonight and she
           will go through some of the logistics for the

              Kay Rudolph: Good evening. The first
           thing I would like to do is to let you know that
           we will have simultaneous interpreting of the
           English comments into Spanish and I'd like to
           introduce our interpreter for this evening,
           Beatriz Rubio.

              Beatriz Rubio: I am Beatriz Rubio. I am
           the interpreter for those of you who wish to
           hear   the  presentation  interpreted  from
           English into Spanish or from Spanish into
           English.    Please  sit  here  where   the
           audiophones are.    You will be  hearing
           simultaneously what the speakers are saying
           and if you wish to make any comments, you
           will be heard in English as well.  I will bring
           you here to  the front and I will interpret for
           you into English. Thank you.

              Kay Rudolph:  I just want to give you a
           few of the  logistics of the evening tonight.
We'll be calling speakers in the order in which
they registered (the number on the little white
card you were given when you signed in). We
ask that you try to keep your comments  to
about five minutes and I will stand up at five
minutes to let you know where we are. We
ask also  that  you  speak  towards  the
microphone and, if you decide at any time in
the evening that you would like to speak and
you haven't registered, just go to the front
desk and let them know and they will add you
to the list. If you have additional comments
or if you have brought written comments and
you'd like to leave written comments with us—
leave  those at the front desk. We also  have
the address where you can send additional
comments afterwards and we have a card for
Jeannie Heying with her address.  There is a
pay telephone downstairs to the right.  The
rest rooms are out this door on this level to
the left, and there is a drinking water fountain
next to that. We also have some water and
cups at the back of the room. We'll be taking
a break approximately midway through the
meeting and we will announce that to you. I
'think  that covers everything.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  Good evening and
welcome. My name is Lynn Goldman and I
am at the EPA and I  serve as  Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Prevention,
                                                                              California  213

           Pesticides and Toxic Substances at the EPA.
           I'm here tonight, along with my colleagues
           from various government agencies, to listen to
           your experiences with the Worker Protection
           Standard or  WPS.   Too  often,  we  in
           government are faceless people that you do
           not have a chance to meet.  Too often,
           government   passes   regulations  without
           realistically  evaluating the  effects.    The
           purpose of this meeting is to have face-to-face
           communication  that lets us know the real
           effects of our regulation.  President Clinton
           has told us to get out of Washington to listen
           to  people,  to  find the  solutions to the
           important problems that we face.  The WPS
           does address a very important problem and
           that is  the  problem of providing basic
           protections for agricultural workers by infor-
           ming them about the hazards of pesticides,
           lessening the  exposure to pesticides, and
           mitigating or treating the exposures when they
           occur.   It  is  a  high   priority  for the
           Environmental Protection Agency.
               Our  standard strengthens  safeguards for
           over 3.5 million agricultural  workers and
           pesticide handlers.  We have made extensive
           efforts to implement the Worker Protection
           Standard, but we could not have done that
           without  our state  partners.   Together, we
           produced and distributed  large numbers of
           training  materials and  conducted extensive
           education of employers, pesticide handlers,
           and agricultural workers.
              Tonight is another phase in our collective
           education.  We know that the work is not
           done, and we are  here tonight to  find out
           what we need to  do to  finish that work.
           During  the process  of implementation we
 have had to respond to concerns that have
 been raised by many—by farmworkers and by
 agricultural employers alike.  We found that
 not every situation that occurs in agriculture is
 exactly the same in every part of the country.
 Inevitably,  situations  arose   that  needed
 interpretation so that everybody could follow
 the  regulation.  This has been  a complex
 process  and  one  that  has  needed   the
 involvement of a lot of people.
    Some of the changes that have been made
 in 1995 include: we established five days as the
 number  of  days of  employment before
 workers  must be given safety training,  but
 then assured  that there  would  be some
 information given on the first day so that no
 worker would go into the field without some
 level of information.  We exempted qualified
 crop advisors  from some  requirements; we
 allowed early entry into pesticide-treated areas
 to  perform  certain limited  contact  and
 irrigation  activities; and we established criteria
 that allow lower toxicity products to qualify
 for four-hour restricted entry interval. More
 recently,  we  issued an  amendment to  the
warning sign requirements so that in parts of
 the country where farmworkers speak other
 languages than Spanish that those languages
 could be  on the sign, and an amendment to
 the decontamination requirement that reduces
the  number of days that decontamination
supplies are required after a low-risk pesticide
with a restricted entry interval of four hours
or less, has been applied. Shortly we will issue
a proposed amendment to address issues of
glove requirements. We will continue to work
closely with you to identify and address your
214  California

   Let me emphasize again that tonight is the
time, for those of you who have concerns, to
talk and for those of us who work for the
EPA and for the state, to listen.  We want to
hear  your  thoughts   about the  Worker
Protection Standard—what  is working and
what is not working.  Before we begin the
public  meeting,  I  want  to express  our
appreciation  for the  leadership  of state
officials here in California, the county officials
here in Monterey County, the creativeness of
the  State  Extension  Services,  and  the
commitment of local service and agricultural
organizations.    I  should  also  say that  I
appreciate the turnout that I see here tonight
among growers  and farmworkers alike.   I
know that all of you are taking time from your
very busy days, from your families, to be here
with us and I want you to know that we
appreciate and value that time.
   I want to close by saying  that,  under
President Clinton's leadership, we have made
a commitment to making this program work
in away that protects the health of the public
and lessens  the  risks to the workers while
providing the  needed flexibility.    I look
forward to hearing all of your comments and
I want to thank all of you for being here
   And now I'm going to turn the meeting
over to Kay—actually, before that, there are a
few people  that I see  here that I  want to
recognize, to make sure you are all aware that
they are in the audience. If these folks could
stand up so that we could identify them (some
are up  here):   Karen  Stahlman from the
Department of  Pesticide Regulation; John
Donahue, who is going to give us a welcome
from the  state;  Bob  Chavez  from  the
California   Department    of   Pesticide
Regulation; Joe Karl from the Santa Barbara
Agricultural  Commissioner's  Office;  Rick
Bergman from the Santa Cruz Agricultural
Commissioner's Office; from the University of
California at Davis, we have Pat Maurer and
Melanie  Zavala;  and  from  the  Monterey
Agricultural Commissioner's Office, Francis
Pabrua,  Dan Rochester, and  Bob Roach.
Thank you all for being here  and I  think,
actually, John Donahue is next.

   John Donahue: Thank you, Lynn. Here
in California  we  have  had  our  Worker
Protection Standards in place for a number of
years and what we are going through now is a
process of amending our regulations to bring
certain aspects of them up to speed with the
federal Worker Protection Standard. We are
in that process now and possibly we should
have  those   in   place  completely  for
implementation on January 1, 1997. We are
now going through the  final phases of our
rule-making package. So,  that's where we are
here in California.  Thank you, Lynn.

   Dr. Lynn Goldman: OK, I think we turn
things over to Kay at this point  and begin
public comments.

   Kay Rudolph:  Our first speaker will  be
Don Rochester, who is #1.

   Don Rochester: Thank you. My name is
Don Rochester. I am the Assistant Agricul-
tural Commissioner with Monterey County.
I'll have a few general comments and then  I'll
                                                                      California  215

           leave  it to you  for  the  specifics of your
              Since the  Agricultural Commissioner's
           Office  in  this   county—and  the  Com-
           missioner's Offices in all counties—is the chief
           enforcement office of these regulations, we
           feel that we should make a few comments
           relative  to  the effectiveness, some  of  the
           problems that we see,  and some  of  the
           resolutions  that we hope to see come down
           the pike through meetings like this and people
           getting together and working these things out
           in a calm, rational way.
              I was pleased to hear Dr. Goldman's
           comments  regarding her  view  of  the
           dissimilarity  of  the  country's   farming
           communities. They definitely are.  She got
           into some of my remarks, but that's all right,
           because that's a key—that we all understand
           that it is not the same in one part of the
           country as it is in  another.   The safety
           requirements are essential in both areas, but
           they are not the same as far  as  how you
           achieve them.  I'm sure that you folks from
           Washington and  I know that California has
           the largest  and  most diverse  agricultural
           economy in the nation. Around $22 billion of
           income was  generated  by  agriculture  in
           California in 1995 and Monterey County
           accounted for over $2 billion of this total, or
           roughly 10% of the state total. We are one of
           the top three producing counties in the state.
              California has developed over the past 25
           years   a program of worker protection
           standards that has been effective, fair, and
           generally supported by those affected. This
           program was developed taking into account
           the vast array  of agricultural  crops and
commodities produced in California.  Over
250 commodities are produced in this state, at
last count. It is difficult to argue that the
federal Worker Protection Standards were not
needed. They, indeed, were. The standards
needed in Kansas, however, might not fit the
same  situation in Florida or California. The
imposition of an overall rule nationwide that
might work well in one area of the country
while causing severe problems in another was
not the way, I would hope, that the rule was
envisioned.  The farming and  harvest con-
ditions in California are as varied as the crops
we grow.  Smaller growing areas, labor crews
that move rapidly from one field to another
performing various cultivation and harvesting
operations are normal.  This scenario is  far
different from large plantings of less  labor-
intensive crops such as barley, wheat, or corn.
California growers   are  concerned  about
worker protection.  They make the effort to
comply with all existing regulations. There is
no advantage to anyone to have less than the
safest farming operation possible.
    However, toward this end, these same
California growers are concerned about the
logistics  involved  in  providing  individual
notice of pesticide  applications  to  the
multitude  of labor  contractors, harvest
companies, pest control advisors, and others
that might now be  required to be notified.
Nursery operators are concerned about the
restrictive re-entry requirement now coming
into place that makes it difficult for them to
harvest their crops. I'm sure these and other
specifics will  be addressed by  some of the
growers and farmworkers and others of you
that speak tonight.
216  California

    The farming and harvest conditions  in
California are as varied as the crops we grow.
Smaller growing areas, labor crews that move
rapidly from one field to another, providing
harvest operations—these are the norm. What
we need is to realize, and I think that we are
well on that track, that regulations that fit the
work site are the ones that will be applied and
used effectively and will get the desired result:
that is, safety for the •worker and the crop
harvested, treated, and grown in a safe and
effective  manner.   The work  site in  this
country is  not  one large  work  site  but
hundreds and thousands of various ones. So,
again, thank you for letting me speak, and I'm
sure that there will be others here who will
speak to the specifics, and  more, that I have
brought up this  evening.  Thank you very

    Alan Mitchell:  Hello there, my name is
Alan Mitchell.  I'm a co-owner of California
Pajarosa. California Pajarosa is a rose-growing
operation  which  my  partner  and myself
started in 1979.   At this  time we have 50
employees and some of these people have
been working with us since we started the
operation. When we first started this business,
it used to  be a very profitable business.  We
gave raises to our employees every year; up
until last year, we gave them bonuses; we have
a health program  for employees.  Since we
have been •working with them for so long, it's
more like a big family operation, and we try to
treat it like  that. If we are making money, our
employees are making money. My kids have
also worked in this same  atmosphere since
they were  able to walk. Now we are starting
to have problems with countries like Colum-
bia and Ecuador that  are sending cheap
flowers and making it a real threat for a lot of
us to stay in business.   In  fact, some of us
have already closed our doors.
    The next thing that has happened, we got
our state regulations for  pesticides, which we
all followed.  We did a lot of the things that
the new EPA is having the whole country do
how. We were willing to do that, we had no
problem with it, we want to do something to
keep our employees safe and ourselves safe.
But some of the new things that are in this
new federal  EPA—these new re-entry or
something—that may put the final nail in the
coffin for any rose grower. We cut our roses
two times, some varieties three times, a day.
And that's every day of the year except for
Christmas and New Year's, which we cut just
one time a day. Without doing that, we have
to throw away the product. We are  running
such a tight line right now that if we were to
do  that, we would be out of business.  So,
potentially, these new re-entry  standards are
something  that could put  an  end  to rose
growing in the United States. So this is a very
serious thing for ourselves and the 50 people
who are •working with us. We are probably
the largest rose-growing area in the United
States, between Salinas and Watsonville.  We
want to follow the regulations, we want to be
legal, and we have other problems not even
being legal. We have a problem that if some-
body gets sick, we have  litigation problems.
We can have somebody come back on us and
make claims of illness or sickness due to what
we've been making them do.  So  this  is a
threat. I've been in business since '79.  I've yet
                                                                      California  217

          to  have  one sickness  or illness due  to
          pesticide-related causes and I think that maybe
          the county man could agree to that.  I think
          that there are many other rose growers that
          can say the same thing.
              We need to  have  some type of  an
          exemption, some way that we can go in and
          cut these flowers after we've  sprayed with
          pesticides. Some of our feelings are that the
          state programs have worked great in this area
          and we have  really found very little to prove
          that there has been any type of a problem. I
          fear more for my mother, who lives in San
          Jose, with the smog problem; I fear more for
          my sister, who smokes cigarettes, than I ever
          will be concerned about my workers or my
          kids or myself working in my greenhouses.
          We need something or otherwise I think rose
          growing in this area is going to come to an
          end or you  are going to have a bunch of
          outlaws here. Either they don't follow the
          regulations, or they get an exemption, or they
          close their doors.  Thank you.

              Juanita Martinez [Speaking in Spanish with
          English interpreter]:   My name  is Juanita
          Martinez and I come from the Employment
          Development  Department    (EDD)   in
          Watsonville.   I am  the migrant seasonal
          farmworker (MSFW) outreach worker. What
          justifies an EDD office to have an MSFW
          outreach worker like myself is that 10% of the
          work applications in the job service section are
          farmworkers. My duties as outreach worker
          are to inform the farmworker about services
          offered by EDD.  I explain deductions that
          employers make from their checks.  Many
          workers do not know what those deductions
represent. I also give them information on
the list of agencies offered in the community,
such as ESL training.  I also inform them
about   complaint   procedures—complaint
procedures against EDD staff and problems
in the work place. I feel that this is fair for the
employer that is complying with the rules and
regulations as against the employer that is not
complying with regulations.  I also give them
information  on the Africanized honey bee,
which is already in the San Diego area; give
them information on pesticide safely; changes
that are being implemented in EDD at this
time such as, in the future for this area we will
have telephone claim filing for unemployment
insurance. Telephone claim filing is going on
in other parts of the state.
   Just  out of  curiosity:   how  many
employers do we have  here?  How many
farmworkers  are here?  Two farmworkers?
Three?  How many of the three farmworkers
are foremen? OK.  How many employers
notified  their workers  about this meeting?
One, two? OK, that's all I have to say.

  :  Salvador  Carillo:  Good evening.  My
names is Salvador Carillo.   I'm  a  business
agent for Teamsters Union Local 890.  And I
have also worked as a field worker for several
years.  This local union  is based here in
Salinas, California, and we represent about
12,000 members; around 7,000 of those are
field workers and around 4,000 or more work
in agricultural-related occupations.  They all
come into contact, at one point or another,
during the performance of their duties, with
pesticides and/or residues.  Let me thank the
Department  for holding this public hearing
218  California

 here in Salinas and for the opportunity it
 provides  to express our opinions on these
    You will  be listening to  all  kinds of
 complaints against the  use and  abuse of
 pesticides. And if we might sound bitter or
 disappointed   against    die   Agricultural
 Commissioner, your agencies, the growers, the
 system in general, it is because we are. There
 is something wrong with a system that seems
 to work on behalf only of the growers or the
 companies, not on behalf of the field workers.
 Some people might want to  cease the use of
 pesticides altogether.  Some are working to
 gradually  phase out chemicals like  methyl
 bromide, mainly for strawberries.  We hope
 that   through   future   research,  viable
 alternatives to the use of pesticides  will be
 found soon.  But in the meantime we think
 that it is a moral obligation for the Agency, for
 the state, to improve safety for the workers—
 both handlers of pesticides and field workers
 in general. But you are not going to attain
 that by weakening the existing regulations.
    We strongly  oppose your proposal to
 change the clarity  of employers' [respon-
 sibilities] strictly by adding the words "assure"
 and "ensure" to the regulations.   Hazard
 pesticide information  must be posted on a
 prominent place on the employees' work site,
 be it at the entry to  a field or on a plant
 bulletin board. But not  filed away in a file
 cabinet in an office away from the immediate
work site, accessible to employees only during
 office hours.  This is  preposterous.  Field
workers start very early in the  morning and
 sometimes work until late in the afternoon
with  no time to go to  an office besides.
 Relevant information needs to be posted in
 the fields because many people not only work
 in those fields, but people pass by or remove
 equipment from treated field to field  like
 irrigators that need to be included under the
 definition of hand labor.
    We also strongly oppose the addition of
 Section 61 SOB that provides fines against the
 worker for failure to follow guidelines. Most
 of the problem  with  pesticides  is lack  of
 training by the employer and/or the lack of
 protection or protective equipment that must
 be  provided  by  the  employer  to  the
 employees.   How  can you possibly justify
 fining an employee for not using protective
 equipment when none was given to him? Is it
 the  employee's  fault that  he did  not  get
 appropriate training from the employer who
 is responsible for getting it first and then
 providing it to the employee?
    Change     areas    and    appropriate
 decontamination facilities for materials must
 be  provided for pesticide  handlers of  all
 toxicity levels  to reduce work-site and take-
 home  exposure to other  pesticides  being
 handled by other workers. Safety equipment
 like coveralls and respirators must continue to
 be provided  as often  as necessary for the
 protection of all their employees from being
 sprayed while working on the field. That must
 not be deleted from the regulations, Section
 6762A, since it is one of the most important
 provisions protecting the safety and health of
 the field workers.
   Adequate ventilation for greenhouses after
an application should  be done by  exhaust
ventilation with a minimum of 10 exchanges
per hour, or more exchanges in more time for
                                                                       California  219

          less powerful systems, because 24 hours with
          no  ventilation  is  unacceptable.    If no
          ventilation is done, the greenhouses will be
          extremely hot upon re-entry and employees
          will  tend to use less protective clothing, and
          the   danger  of  dermal  absorption   will
          dramatically increase.
              The re-entry wearing periods must be
          strictly observed.  No early entry should be
          allowed to fields recently sprayed, particularly
          for  irrigators, and the skull-and-crossbones
          signs must not be removed from treated areas.
          On   the  contrary,  information  contained
          should be  expanded to  provide  more
              In closing, under no circumstances should
          regulations be weakened. Employers and big
          corporations   do not  really  need  your
          protection.  Farmworkers do.  Enforcement
          should be stepped up to provide as much
          security and safety as possible for the people
          that work the ground and put food on this
          nation's tables. We deserve it. Thank you.

              Joe Karl:  I'm Joe Karl. I'm with the
          Agricultural Commissioner's Office in Santa
          Barbara County, where  I  supervise the
          Pesticide Enforcement Program. I would like
          to run through three scenarios that appear to
          be problems in either enforcement or for the
          ability of employers  to be in compliance and
          I did provide it in writing, so you've got it to
          review at your leisure.
               The first suggestion I have has to do with
          modifying  the   quarter-mile   notification
           requirement. The suggestion I would make is
           to modify the requirement to allow employers
          to adopt a strict policy of prohibiting entry for
their employees so their employees are clearly
notified that they should not enter any field
other than the fields that they are specifically
directed to work in. The reason I would make
that suggestion  is that,  at least in  many
agricultural  situations, a  grower  may  be
farming a number of different fields and may
be spread out over a large area, and pesticide
applications may be required to take place in
any of those fields at any given  time. The
notification process for field workers, or any
workers who may pass within a quarter-mile
of that employer's own fields, misses the fields
of other employers.   Those workers  won't
ever know about those fields which may have
been treated. It also is a major burden as far
as a large operation being able to actually get
clear  information to  all the workers who
should be receiving it. The suggestion I made
where a grower gives clear  direction that his
employees should enter only the fields that
they  are assigned to work  in could   be
enforceable under the discretionary policy that
California already has in place. It  could be an
enforceable situation  and  it would also  be
clearer—we would just get better compliance.
    Another issue that I would like to mention
has to do with providing field workers with
clear communication.  There  is a situation
where, if a pesticide is injected below the soil
surface (for instance, Disulfoton is used prior
to  the  planting of several crops).   If that
material is  injected below the  soil  surface
where workers would not  be  expected and
would not come in contact with it, -workers
can, under federal regulation, enter that field
to place irrigation pipe. At the same time, that
field  is  required to  be  posted with signs
220  California

warning workers to stay out.  My concern is
we are developing a situation where workers
are given conflicting information.  They are
allowed to enter the field because they are not
going to come in contact with the pesticide
but at the same time there are signs up that
give  them  warning about  the  pesticide
application that took place. My suggestion
would be that there be an exemption for
posting for that field because,  while it is
reasonable to expect that the workers could
enter it safely, that sign at the edge of the field
can result in confusion to the workers that are
entering and also other •workers who may see
the irrigators in that field.
    The last suggestion  I have has to do with
the method  in which records are required to
be  made available  to  the workers.   The
requirements, under the federal standard, are
that workers must have unimpeded access to
the records  and I see a problem with that.
The records, in many vegetable  production
situations and other farming situations, can  be
complex and, just due to the complexity, to
expect a field worker, or to expect anyone to
be able to go to the records, a file cabinet for
instance, open that file cabinet and find the
record that refers to  the field that they were
concerned  about and  the date  they  are
concerned about is expecting, I believe, too
much.  In a large farming operation, there can
literally be thousands of records.  The ability
to find the right record and take that record to
their physician and say, "This is the pesticide
application that I'm concerned about," "These
are the materials that I'm concerned about,"
and for the physician to base some  diagnosis
or decision  on that, record—I just  think we
should have a clearer process by which those
records can be given to the worker so that we
know that the worker gets the record that is
the correct one.
    Another area where I see problems is that
workers may go through those records and
take out the files  that interest them because
they need them for their own use, at which
point those records are no longer accurate, the
files are no longer accurate. Another situation
is where they look at the records they need
and they put them back, but they are misfiled
and we've all had to deal with a...if a record is
misfiled, it might as well not exist.
    Those  are  the  areas that I wanted  to
discuss. As I say,  there's...

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  I'd like to  say a
couple of things because some of the things
that I just heard, I think there may be some
misunderstandings about, at least, what the
federal standard requires. I'd like to make a
couple of clarifying comments.  One is that
the notification requirement is a requirement
for posting in a central area information about
pesticide applications. There is no  require-
ment that anybody, other than the farmer, be
allowed to go through the farmer's records.
And so I think that is very important—that the
standard does not allow any other individuals
to go through the farmer's record. And so, I
don't think there needs to be a concern about
people accessing  files, getting files out  of
order—that simply is not a requirement of the
standard  and,  from what   you  said,  we
probably shouldn't  require  it in the future
either. So your comments are appreciated on
                                                                       California  221

              Another area where it sounded like there
          may  be a  little bit  of—and  it  may have
          something to do with the way the California
          standard works versus the federal standard—is
          the issue of irrigation.  Just to say that, in
          terms of the federal standard, that we do have
          an irrigation exemption  but it is for entry
          druing a restricted entry interval in order to do
          irrigation-related work. It does require some
          protective equipment and it does require that
          it be urgently necessary to do the work at that
          time rather than waiting until after the end of
          the REI.  And so there may be a  little bit of
          confusion about that. And I  know that in the
          past that California's regulation was different
          in the way that it treated irrigation  work.  But
          I think maybe a part of what I'm hearing is a
          need to iron out some of these differences.

              John  Donahue:   There  was  another
          comment made from the representative of the
          Teamsters Union about fining the employee.
          That is  strictly a provision that California had
          put into the reg package; that is not an EPA
          requirement.   I just want  to  clear up the
          confusion on that. In fact, in the  final reg
          package,  some fine  guidelines  have been
          pulled  so that we can work  on them further,
          but there is still provision  to fine  licensees
          versus employees, and that's the way the regs
          read.  We had gotten numerous  comments
          from you on our reg packages and  other labor
          representatives  on that. So that the issue,
          under  6130, of fining the employee, that's a
          California provision and I just don't want you
          to get that   confused with the  federal
    Dr. Lynn  Goldman:  To restate that:
under the federal standard, the employee is
not liable, so would not be fined.

   Joe Karl: Two things that you've brought
up: one is the re-entry into the field (and I've
done it so  many times).   If you follow the
federal  guidelines  for  compliance,  if you
follow  that for no-contact activities, and it
specifically identifies pesticides that have been
injected below the soil surface as a no-contact
activity, workers can re-enter the field and the
signs are still required to be up, so I think it's
a real confusing situation.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: OK, fair enough.

    Joe Karl: The other one: the availability of
these records.  I guess I'm mistaken but I
thought use records had to  be available for
workers and their...

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:   Not under  the
federal standard.  Is there a California state
standard that requires...?

    Joe Karl:  That was an example of how
someone would  comply  and how  people
would  access records, that was thrown out as
an example—in other words, they didn't have
to  be  posted but they had  to be available.
With the condition of unimpeded access it
would be like a grower would have his records
for himself and a duplicate set for people to
look at. I think that was thrown out as an
example of how people could comply with
that in our discussions over the years with
EPA.  It's one of the ways of complying with
222  California

it. It could happen but I would think that it
would not be the growers' only records.  It
might force them to keep two sets of records
to comply with this provision, though.  One
for people to look at and one for them to
keep  for  their own records,  but still just
duplicate records.

    Kay Rudolph: Thank you. We appreciate
your patience as we try to respond to some of
the questions that were raised.   Our  next
speaker is Joseph Prandini.

   Joseph Prandini:  Good evening.  I'm Joe
Prandini with Betteravia Farms in Santa Maria,
California.  First, I'd  like to say that we
wholeheartedly believe in the protection  of
the workers from any hazards, and we believe
in a lot of the parts of the WPS.  And that's
why I am concerned with the one-quarter mile
notification.  There have been people from
EPA that have come to our ranch, and some
at this table, who I've showed our operation
to and asked them a simple  question: How
could we do it? On all the acres that we farm
and all the plots that we farm, -we have  over
450 plots with 200 or 300 roads, with over 700
employees that change fields during the day
that go to all those.  If I gave them  a list of
everything that they might do, they would be
so confused that it would be useless and it
would actually hurt our  operation.   If you
explain to the people, "This is the field you
are going to work in today, that's the one you
can go in," and if you tell the people in charge,
"If any of those workers go in those fields and
you're in charge, you'll lose your job"-- that
seems to me to be a much more workable way
to do this than to hand them a sheet of paper
that, first of all, they may not understand and,
second of all, it would be confusing to me if I
saw a piece of paper that had a hundred
different plots on it that I might come within
a quarter of a mile of in a working day in an
area in the Santa Maria Valley.
    Second  of all,  I  don't believe  I quite
understood your explanation  on the record
keeping.  The first time a person from EPA
came to our operation they said, "Well, it's
really simple; you take a little clipboard and
you hang it on the wall and you put up the
report for the day and when all the employees
come in for their lunch, they sit down and can
look through it and see what it is."  We've got
5,000 acres with 700 people that work at least
12  hours a  day scattered all over the Santa
Maria Valley.  They don't  come and all  sit
down together and have...[Taping suspended
while tape was changed]...and if you can tell
me that, if I can put some posters up, that
would be fine.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  The requirement, as
it's written, is  that it be posted and available
and there are a lot of different ways that
farmers can meet that requirement.  One way
that we don't require is that people actually
have access to your files, can go into  your files
themselves and pull things out of the files.
That's all I was  trying to say.  But what is
important, in order to meet the standard, is
that the information is available in a central
location however  you  can best  do that,.
whether you need to do it in several locations
or in one place. In some instances, people are
putting the  information  near the  toilets,
                                                                       California  223

          whatever toilet facilities there are; that being a
          central location that many people have to visit
          in the course of a day. We want you to use
          common sense, but the standard would say "a
          central location" and it would say "posted."'

              Joseph Prandini:  But, realistically, if it's
          going to be usable for people, does it make
          any sense to have a board with a hundred
          pieces of paper on it that someone who may
          not read English, or who may not even read at
          all in any language, can walk up  to and say,
          "What do I do with this?" rather than walking
          to some place and say, "I worked five days ago
          Ranch 7, Plot 14, and I'd like to  know what
          was used there." That's just a comment.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman: I've just a comment
          back.  If you can have a person there to help
          explain it, so much the better. I mean, that
          goes beyond what we require but that's even
          better, if there  is someone there who can
          explain the information.

              Joseph Prandini:  Then we can do that?
          That's all right? Because we were told that we
          couldn't, that we had to leave them alone and
          they could look through and do whatever they
          wanted. So we can have someone there to
          help them?

              Dr. Lynn Goldman; Yes. I mean, I think
          what the issue is, that it needs to be there and
          available in a central location. And we say in
          the standard "posted" and I guess that's the
          minimum. That's the minimum.  If you want
          to go beyond that and have somebody there
          who can explain it, that's fine. If you want to
give people access to your files, that's fine—but
we don't require those things.

   Joseph Prandini:  Then could you make
that a little more clear in the regulations in
saying that you can have someone  at the
central location to explain to people what is
there rather than having them dig through the

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  But that would be in
addition to posting it.

   Joseph Prandini:  I want to comment.
Since the quarter-mile provision seems to be
such a sticky one, I believe that you must have
done a lot of research  to come up with the
fact that we need that.  I'd like to have some
of that information  available.  Like, for
instance,  how  many people in the Santa
Barbara and San Luis Obispo  County were
exposed to pesticides from early re-entry? Do
you have that, Doctor?

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: What I can provide
to you is  the record that the  Agency used
when it issued the rule in 1992.  I will say that
the EPA spent a long time putting together
the rule. I will also say it was before my time.
I do not know what that record was, but we
can  certainly get that to you, if you'd like to
see it.
    Joseph  Prandini:
 Thank you.
Could  you  please?
224  California

    Dr. Lynn  Goldman:  I would be quite
doubtful that they would have specific data for
Santa Barbara County, but you never know.

    JosephPrandini: One last comment. In
your  notice,  you  say  that  3.5  million
farmworkers are exposed to pesticides. Does
that mean that  3.5  million people  were
poisoned by pesticides?

    Dr. Lynn Goldman:  No, exposed does
not mean poisoned.

    Joseph Prandini: What does it mean?

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: Exposed means that
in their daily work they are in contact with
pesticides and, certainly, may be at risk for
being poisoned,  but  have  some  level of

    Joseph Prandini: And "contact" meaning,
you mean that some of those were entering
fields before they were supposed to? Or is it
just that they might work in the  area where
pesticides have been used, are used?

    Dr.  Lynn Goldman: Exactly. These are
the people for whom the Worker Protection
Standard applies.

    Joseph Prandini: And I agree it should be.
But if it were  stated a little more clearly, I
think it wouldn't look like  that people in
agriculture are  poisoning 3.5 million people a
    Ron Cisney: I'm Ron Cisney and I'm with
Olocco Ag  Services,  a  full-service  crop
protection company in Santa Maria Valley.
California's Worker Safety Regulations and the
compliance of those regulations over  many
years have served the entire ag community,
farmworkers included, and the public at large
extremely well.   EPA WPS has enhanced
those regulations in some cases.  I'm sorry I
can't agree that it enhances the regulations and
the compliance of those regulations in every
    A little bit redundant, but  I must make
comment myself on the quarter-mile issue and
the notification.  The way it's written and the
way it's interpreted in the federal regulations is
going  to  be  extremely  confusing in  the
vegetable  producing areas on  the coast of
California. I think it is perhaps going to work
reasonably well in other production areas  but
it is extremely difficult.  I think that Joe Karl
probably has  the best example  of how to
address that and I would urge you—please!
(exclamation point on that). Thank you very
much. Unless you have questions.

    Guillermina Garnica [Speaking in Spanish
with  English  interpreter]:  My  name  is
Guillermina Garnica and I am a farmworker
or an agricultural employee and at the same
time I also -work in packing pesticides for two
employers in my working area.  One of the
things  that I  hear today from my  union
concerns the  re-entry period in  the working
area, which means we are risking more our
lives. Because everything depends on that. We
came here to make sure that the regulations
don't go down. The re-entry period for us is
                                                                       California  225

          very important. When we read the labels and
          those packages that we are using, sometimes
          they say 24-hour re-entry period or 48-hour
          re-entry period. And sometimes we spray in
          the afternoon and they say, first thing in the
          morning we need to go inside of this area to
          continue doing our job, and that is risking us
              One of the things that I hear is that the
          growers produce a lot of millions of dollars.
          That's good for everybody, it means that you
          are doing a very nice job.  But you forget that
          we are the ones who do the job. The growers,
          they give us the orders~"Do this, do that"—
          and that's  it.  The ones that are doing the
          whole thing is us. It's not the same thing to
          do the job than to order you to do it.
              Mr. Alan  [Mitchell] said earlier that he is
          concerned about the re-entry period because
          of his roses and that he thinks of his workers
          as  family.  If he really thinks  like that, why
          didn't he bring one of his workers so he can
          explain how the job is doing in his own area?
              Mr.  Joseph  [Prandini] from Betteravia
          Farm said there's a lot of people in his area
          that do not know how to read. If he's really
           concerned  about   his  employees,   one
          supervisor, one foreman can  take  a few
          minutes every single day to read something so
           these people know a little bit more about the
          job that they are doing. This year and last year
           I read in the newspaper  that full crews were
           taken to the Memorial Hospital to  be taken
           care of because they were working in those
           fields—pesticides.  I had an injury 10 years ago.
           It was nothing, just a scratch on one of my
           legs, but the fertilizer went into my blood and
           I was  laid up  for  two weeks; workman's
compensation right away. And it was nothing,
just a small cut with a little bit of blood. So if
the fertilizer  can  do that to me, what can
pesticides do? It is very risky.
   When we start into training, people say,
"No, it's too  much for me."  Just to read, at
the beginning, you know, when you're starting
to take those examples when they are training
you to do pesticides, they said, "No, I won't
do that." Why?  Because if you don't follow
those  rules,  if  you  don't  use  the right
equipment, if you don't feel comfortable, you
could die or you could kill another person if
you spray more.
   Those labels are hard for us to understand
because they are talking about so many acres,
so many gallons  sprayed, maybe 100, 200
gallon of that chemical.  So we need a label
that we really can understand. Plus, most of
the labels  are in English and the  agricultural
employees in this  area are mostly Spanish-
speaking only. It is really the growers'  concern
about us to give us a little bit more of your
time. Personally, I have nothing to say about
my company because  we have  very good
training and  that's why I learn more. I see
people spray  on the strawberry without any
safety gear. Does this  mean that you really
care about the employee? No, I  don't think
so. And you can drive by in the afternoons,
after 3:00 p.m., they are doing it almost once,
twice a week.  Because I drive this area almost
every single day.
    The re-entry period is important  for us in
the same way  that it is important for you. But
I  believe  that each one  of you have one
[Inaudible]...to follow and you need to fit at
what  time   is  best  time  to  spray your
226  California

Pnaudible]... I have a question for you. If one
grower  is  spraying  on  a single crop, like
broccoli,  cauliflower,  maybe  lettuce,  on
Monday, and then goes to the same field and
picks it maybe by Thursday, is there  enough
time for sending it to the customers? Because
we are eating that product and I believe there
are still some small amounts of residues in it.

   Dr.  Lynn Goldman:  I can tell you that
not only do we have the re-entry interval, the
time after the spraying before the worker can
come in, but we have another regulation that
is  the pre-harvest interval, that is the time in
between the spraying and when  it can  be
harvested and go to market. And sometimes
those times are different. They're both on the
label and one takes into account the risk  for
the workers and the other one the risk for the
consumers.  So -we  look at both of  those

    Guillermina Garnica: OK.  One of the
other things is, in the working area once a year
one person from the Agriculture Commission
stops by and reviews those files. You know,
in the last 10 years I've never seen any one of
those people come and ask us how we feel to
do the spraying, is the company taking good
care  of  you,  did  he really  see  our
equipment...In  10 years  I don't see anybody
speak with one of the employees. Thank you.
I wish to say more but a lot of people  are
waiting too  and everyone deserves to  say
something. Thank you.

    Don Howell: My name  is Don  Howell.
I'm   a  grower  with  the   Pajaro  Valley
Greenhouses.  I'm an employee, also a mixer
and a handler. We have about 850,000 square
feet of greenhouses with over 40 greenhouse
workers.  Roses are our main  crop. We've
been working  with  Worker  Protection
Standards for over two years. We've tried very
hard to be ahead of the regulatory process in
adopting new procedures as we become aware
of them.   In general we have  found the
regulations to be of benefit to the agricultural
worker.   It has encouraged employee and
management awareness  and   I'm  sure  it's
helped in the development of safer pesticides.
    At the Pajaro Valley Greenhouse we've
been using the exception since it was granted
in June of 1994 and we are pleased to say that
we've had no pesticide illness problems.  Our
employees have all been  trained using the
EPA-approved floricultural alliance training
video, our areas are all posted, we use the
proper postings on our employment bulletin
boards,  and  proper  personnel  personal
protective equipment are supplied.
    The biggest problem facing the rose cut
industry is having the ability to cut our roses
twice, or in  some  cases, certain varieties
require that they be cut three times a day. As
an earlier speaker said, we do that every day of
the year, except for Christmas and  New Year's
which is only once.  Roses must be cut that
often for us to be able to supply and ship, in
some cases, to the East Coast and other parts
of the United States, the cosmetically perfect
bloom   that   our   customers   demand.
Otherwise, if they are not cut at that  stage,
then we  end  up throwing it away.   We
estimate that if we were unable to  cut those
                                                                       California  227

           roses twice on any particular day that we could
           lose 20% to 30% of our production.
               We are moving as fast as possible to have
           materials  that  have  lower  REIs and  we
           incorporate them into our programs whenever
           possible.  However, certain situations arise
           where it is necessary for us to use materials
           that have 24- or 48-hour re-entries. Without
           the exception, we are  forced to decide upon
           losing tremendous amounts of product or
           asking our employees to break the law and cut
           the  flowers before the REI has been met.
           Unfortunately,  with  the  industry  being
           attacked as it is by offshore production, in fact
           it leaves us with very little decisions at all. We
           are, in many cases, dealing with a number of
           diseases and pests  such as whitefly, mildew,
           thrips, to  name just a few.   It is often
           necessary  to spray a particular area three or
           four times per week.  In those cases it is
           impossible to manage a program without the
           early re-entry exception. Also, by relying only
           on  12-hour REIs,  we face the potential of
           resistance to those materials. It is of utmost
           importance that we rotate the categories of
           pesticides  we use in our control preventative
           spray programs.
              As  new  materials  become  available,
           especially ones that are safer, not as hot (or, as
           we like to call them, biological), it is important
           that we make them as easy as possible to use.
           Materials such as Margosan, Azatin, and M-
           Pede, which fall into the biological category,
           all have 12-hour REIs. We are not making
           them easier to use when we put an REI of 12
           hours on those.  It's also hard for us to get
           across to the workers that those materials are
           natural products. Some of them come from
juices and fruits of trees. And when they see
the 12-hour REI on that, that confuses them
as to the potential because they see pesticides
and they categori2e them all together.
   Workers need to have the confidence to
know that, as an industry, chemical producers,
suppliers, and users are all moving in the same
direction with  the  same goals.   As these
biological  materials become available, it's to
everyone's best interest to use them.  But we
must find  a way to  encourage  their  use
through lower REIs and not treat them the
same as every other material that is now on
the market.
   In closing, I would like to reiterate that
this  is imperative for us that we have the
exception extended.  As I have stated before,
it has worked well for us in the past and we
have  had no illnesses whatsoever.  We are
professionals, our staff is well trained, and we
have  supported the  changes  but we must
remain profitable to stay in business. Thank

   Dr. Lynn Goldman:  One question for
you.  Could you list again the three pesticides
that you said were—that have 12-hour REIs?

   Don Howell: Yeah.  I listed Margosan
and  Azatin  and  M-Pede  (which  is  an
agricultural soap).

   Dr.  Lynn  Goldman:    OK.   That's
something we'll need to look  into. I know
that  there are a number of them that we
lowered the REIs for, but then I also think
that  perhaps a product that was  still  in
commerce may still have the longer REIs on
228  California

the label.  We'll need to look at that and get
back to you about those specific pesticides.

    Don Howell:   Yeah, there's a lot of
materials like that that are coming down the
pipe in  the  marketplace. And we are  very
encouraged  by those.  But I think it's in the
best interest  to make them as available and as
easy to use as possible.

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: And our philosophy
is that if a 4-hour REI is sufficient for a very
safe product, then we would like to  do  that.
But these  may already be on the list that we
created 4-hour REIs. That's one of the things
I want to look at.

    Grady S. Van Cleve:  Hi.  My  name is
Grady Van Cleve. I work for Western Farm
Service  as a pest control advisor.   I  have
worked for Western Farm for approximately
12 to 13 years.  When I originally started with
the  company   I  actually  did   pesticide
applications for  about three  years.  So  I
actually applied a lot of the things that I advise
on at this time. I will say that in 1994 that the
impetus of trying  to  develop  a  Worker
Protection Standard was a good one.  I felt
that it was something that was going to  push
us forward into the future.  However—and I
work with  a lot of these  flower groups—I
specialize  in floriculture and mushrooms.
That is intensive agriculture and I am not
going to  reiterate what some  of  the earlier
gentlemen had already said.
    One of my  frustrations as a PCA  [pest
control advisor]  is that it does not seem like
some of the  safer materials that are coming on
the market now are expedited more quickly
than  something  that would  be,  say,  a
carbamate or a chorinated hydrocarbon or an
organo-phosphate. You're still forced to go
through the same steps, the same processes.
And, furthermore, a lot of these companies
that are on the cutting edge of developing
some of the safer products are very small
companies.   They are not  the Miles, the
Bayers, the Valents. What I'm trying to say is
that they don't have the big bucks that the
government can soak (and that's the way we
look at it—it can soak) to do all these extra
additional studies.  Furthermore,  they are
gambling by saying, "OK, we think this is
safe," and you guys say, "We need this test,
this test; this test, this test," and it's $3 million.
So they invest $3 million and they don't know
that they are going to get a return on that
investment.  So, in minor crops like I deal
with, floriculture and mushrooms, there is no
motivation for these people. The market is so
small by comparison to corn and soybean and
•wheat. That's a big frustration for myself and
for my growers.                        '
    We  do  implement  integrated  pest
management whenever possible.  I'll tell you—
a big motivation for that is financial. Some of
the stuff that I see these guys use is upward of
$800 a gallon. You cannot tell me that there
is a farmer in this group that wants to apply a
pesticide. It is just not the case.  If these guys
could grow a product without having to use it,
they absolutely would.  OK?  And that goes
for the farmworkers, too. I solemnly believe
in most of my  clients that I  deal with have
their  employees' best interests at heart. Of
                                                                       California  229

            course, there is always a rogue guy here and
            there—we could say that about any industry.
               Going back to what Mr. Howell indicated
            with the Safer Soap (it's now called M-Pede),
            part  of my  job  is  to  work  with  the
            manufacturers in the county and the state in
            order to try to get the REIs lowered. But the
            process and the politics involved in it is just
            ridiculous.  For it to  filter  down from a
            national to a state level is very frustrating.
               And this doesn't really apply to the WPS,
            but it's a statement I'd like to make. We've
            removed—or the government or the state has
            removed—a number of "hard pesticides" over
            the years.  And I would like to  make a
            statement  that I feel  that that alone (even
            though maybe you feel that it's in the best
            interests of  everybody)  has  increased the
            pesticide use by growers because we have less-
            -we have to use more of a lesser potent—I
            don't know,  maybe the terminology is not
            correct.  In other words, we are using softer
            pesticides but we're spraying a lot more to get
            the same job done.  In other words, if I had
            something that was stronger that was more
            efficacious...OK, let's  set aside  that it's not
            endangering the human population. A lot of
            the owners that I work with cut roses along
           with the growers,  so  they are  endangering
            themselves by your standards.  It's just a
            situation that is...it just doesn't make any
            sense.  An example that Mr. Howell gave in
            terms  of working with workers—and here
           we've got an REI of 12 hours for one thing
            that is obviously an organophosphate, if it's
           microencapsulated it is a 12-hour re-entry, and
           then I spray soap which is a long-chain fatty
           acid, it's a 12-hour re-entry.  If there was some
way we could expedite the lowering of those
REIs, we could go ahead and do our work.
Because I can guarantee you that every grower
in this room, if he didn't have to use another
pesticide for the rest of his life, he would do
it. It is not something that we want to do.  It
is something that we have to do to produce
the food to feed our people. Thank you.

    Howard  Hofmann:  Hi, I'm Howard
Hofmann with Campbell's Fresh; manager,
and I grow mushrooms. I've been doing it for
13 years and I'm proud of the safety record
that we've got. It's due to the great work of all
the people at our facility and the state, federal
government. We use the largest-use pesticide,
probably in the world. And that's chlorine.
It's got a 12-hour REI for swimming pool
chlorine (HTH) and I don't see warning signs
up at the health spa or the town pool and they
use far  greater amounts  than we're talking
about.  I don't know how they arrive at an
REI like that and I'd like  some  scientific
background or let's use some science to get
these REIs nailed down. Thank you for your

    Dr. Lynn Goldman: Great question. This
is the first I've heard about it and I can't
answer  the question  either.  It's  a  great
comment—thank you.

   Laura Caballero [Speaking in Spanish with
English interpreter]: I will speak in Spanish
because  my English is limited.   I've been
working  22 years.  I've  heard everybody's
comments  and opinions.  I am surprised to
see that there are so few agricultural workers
230  California

here.  It seems like we need to know more
about the problems the workers have—the
workers who work in all industry.  And I hear
you  say  about  the  Commissioner  of
Regulations, laws and rights of the workers
and the chemicals that exist.  Everything is on
a piece of paper. In reality, it's not a lot, in my
opinion. Twenty-two years that I have been
working in the fields, I've seen more illnesses,
more children being born ill, more families
that miss work because every day they have
more problems, headaches.  Sometimes their
children are sick and they have to miss work.
And this has been holding us back. We live in
a depression. We don't know if it's because of
the chemicals.
    In 22 years  I don't know one name of a
pesticide being used in each product.  I have
worked in Washington,  California, Central
Valley, on many products—cherries, broccoli,
apple.  I don't know the  names  of these
products, and I don't know the damage they
can do,  in short  or  long-time  periods or
whether it produces  harm instantly.  The
regulations are in English.  Companies receive
instructions that they should use [Inaudible]..;
their workers.  But they...do it in their own
way,  because  they're  trying  to  protect
themselves.  Our side is that we should tell
...they should  train  us...We should have
seminars—they should have seminars for us,
the workers, directly.  Not give it to the
ranchers or the buyers of the product. And
then   they   give  their  opinions  second
hand—When one goes to the doctor, we also
see a nurse but we complain to the doctor,
and the  doctor is  the one who  prescribes.
Right?   Because  if the doctor gives the
prescription to the  nurse  then everything
could turn out wrong. The posters out in the
field just say, "Do Not Enter-Danger."  It
doesn't say the date or the time that this was
applied nor the consequences that they could
produce in a short time or long time. It's true,
chemicals cannot be reduced from one day to
the    next   because    daily    we   are
experimenting...They're not saying this is done
to have healthy food at the market. It's more
to produce business and earnings and also to
produce work. But what is the problem?  We
don't have insurance.  People are under social
programs.  And then, they blame the poor
people because they are poor and do not have
money to pay for illnesses  and don't know
what has caused them. The poor don't eat
well, they drink too much... this is the message
that they receive.  Chemicals are harming us
socially, nationally, worldwide—the children
and also our grandchildren and generations to
come.  Thank you.

    Luis Magaiia [Speaking  in Spanish with
English interpreter]: Good evening, my name
is Luis  Magana.  We have had an opportunity
to gather with other workers that have given
their testimony and I don't want to repeat but
something came to my attention.  I want to
review something.
    When an agricultural worker told me that
he was affected or injured, one of many, that's
normal, and I could  not find out •what
pesticide it was, I told  him that there is an
office in the county, in  this  county to which
you have contributed economically, and your
taxes should be worth something. And that's
the office of the Agricultural Commissioner.
                                                                      California  231

          What we found was  that nobody spoke
          Spanish. They brought a secretary from some
          corner (that was in San Joaquin County).  This
          happened the 13th of this month. They told
          us, "You have to pay 20-some dollars and the
          cost of the copies and give us the exact place
          where you were affected." He took photos,
          and he said, "Well, I need to ask permission of
          the farmer to go in there."
              We  said,  how  many  officers  at  the
          Commission of Agriculture are familiar with
          the worker, not only with the farmer? In the
          Central Valley, we made seven calls.  Only one
          of tihem spoke Spanish.  And it was someone
          else—a biologist—who said that he could speak
          Spanish.   Fresno—they said  "No,  that's
          classified information."  This is a new... My
          father, who is here, when he got home one
          day from pruning almonds, he said the boots
          are ruined because  the chemical  destroyed
          them.    Nobody  knew  what  it  was.
          Fortunately, nothing happened to them.  So
          then I tell myself, "We, ourselves, need to do
          something."  I represent an organization of
          migrant workers. When I found out about
          these  hearings,  I  thought,  it's for  our
          protection. We need to invite all the workers
          to come here. I made posters, I made fliers.
          I talked in Fresno on Radio Bilingue; people
          who  had  been injured  called, some ladies,
          somebody from Selma spoke on how the
          farmer  would  remove  the  labels  from
          pesticides. But where are the workers? It's
          sad. There's an important question about the
          agriculture.  If the farmers would invite their
          workers, I assure you that there would not be
          enough  space here in  this room.   The
testimony—I don't know  if it would be  in
favor of the farmer.
   To conclude,  317 workers were asked
what the  rules were  and how they were
enforced. These are the responses. Each one
had five questions. The first one is, "Do you
know how dangerous pesticides are when you
work in the fields? And these are the results-
Number 2: "Do you know EPA's protection
rules for  the worker?"  And we  have the
response... Number 3:  "Have you received
information and training from the farmer or
your boss?" And the response is right here...
Number 4: "Do you  know that it is your
boss's responsibility to give you information
according  to these laws?"  And the answer is
here.' The last one: "Should EPA's laws  be
enforced?" The response is here. Number 2
and  3, we see the results.  Many of the wor-
kers that were asked that question responded
more positive because they received more
information  because they work in a large
cannery or in a large place.  Out of the 300
workers, 100 live  in migrant camps and are
helped by government money. So each year
they come back to work in agriculture.  The
rest  of them, the majority  are undocumented
and  we see the answer.  We know the lack of
enforcement of this law and many others...
    Yesterday  [there] was an  article in  the
Fresno Bee where it talked about farmers.  It
said that in this state they all comply with the
law.  At  the meeting I had yesterday with
some farmworkers, they did not believe this.
They just laughed.  I wish  that  they had
weapons that they could give the workers and
their organizations to enforce these laws.  We
232  California

really need for these laws to  be enforced.
Thank you.

    Tina Chapman: Good evening. My name
is Tina Chapman. I work for Matsui Nursery.
Our primary crop is roses, but we also grow
other   specialty   crops   like   gerbers,
snapdragons, iris, etc.  We employ about 160
people on a year-round basis. This is our slow
season.   Today we bunched about  3,000
bunches of roses  and  2,000 bunches of
specially cut flowers. At Valentine's Day we
will cut well over a million stems of roses.
Last year, U.S. consumers purchased over 2
billion roses, but only 35% were grown in the
United  States.  We are under considerable
pressure from foreign competition.  We are
working very hard at improving our cultural
and handling practices so that we can offer
our market a quality product at a competitive
price. In the cost analysis done regarding the
economic impact that the  EPA  regulations
would cause under the section titled "Impact
on Jobs in California" (it's Title 3 and  26), I
quote: "This action is not expected to result in
the creation or  elimination of any jobs or
businesses in the state.  Neither is this action
likely to  result in the expansion or reduction in
size of any business in the state." I guess they
didn't talk to any rose growers.
    What  is our main problem with the
implementation of the WPS?  The re-entry
intervals and  the prohibition of harvesting
under any circumstances during the REI. We
must cut roses twice a day. In order to insure
our customers a quality product, we must cut
the rose while it is still fairly tight.  If we don't
do a second cut, we stand to lose at least 20%
of that day's production. Someone asked me
if we couldn't sell cracked roses as seconds.
Our market for that quality of rose would
pretty well be limited to the local area. With
so many rose growers in this area, how many
seconds do you think we could  sell  on the
local market? At any price?
    It has  also been  suggested we do  our
pesticide applications at the end of the work
day after the second cut.  The problem with
that scenario is that on a good many days, the
greenhouses are too hot. The greenhouses are
generally  10 to 15 degrees  warmer  than
outdoors.  And that's with our nice wind that
we  have here in Salinas.   Our  applicators
wouldn't like working in this conditions and
the chemicals  are generally not effective at
those high temperatures. Not to mention the
damage that would  be done to the roses—it
would probably cause much  more damage
than we would eliminate.
    Besides losing  the  20%—or  I  think
someone   else  mentioned  30%—of   our
production by not being able to do the second
cut; I also would like  to point out that we also
would incur the additional expense of having
to pay for labor to clean those roses that we
weren't able to cut.  We cannot simply leave
them on the plant.  Roses are in continuous
production. Flowers  are generally given as
gifts and used for special occasions such as
weddings.  The customer demands a perfect
flower and perfect foliage.   We  need  to
constantly care for the crop.
    I am also concerned  with  the potential
loss that may result from delaying a pesticide
spray because of our need to keep cutting. At
Valentine's Day we cut nearly a million stems
                                                                       California  233

           of roses.  We can't do that all in one day.
           Powdery mildew can get out of control in a
           very short time, given the right opportunity.
           You heard a lot from rose growers, but there
           are also other flower growers that will be hurt
           by this. Because I know that  iris and tulips
           and other specially cut flowers also have the
           need to be cut twice a day.  Rose growers
           won't be the only pnes adversely affected.
           And if the rose growers go under, how long
           do think other flower growers will stay in
           business?  Would there be  enough shipping
           for the trucking companies and the  other
           support companies to stay in  operation? I
           don't think so.
              We do not want to put  our employees at
           unnecessary risk. Help us to find solutions to
           this dilemma.   There  are probably  more
           chemicals   that  could  be applied  using
           automated foggers, etc., at night, but they are
           not labelled for that use. Perhaps there are
           other criteria that we could use to judge the
           safety of a treated area other than merely the
           passage of time.  We want  to keep  our
           employees  safe.   But  we  need to  stay
           economically viable in order to keep  our
           employees' jobs.  Thank you.

              Rosendo Franco:  Good  evening.   My
           name is Rosendo Franco. I am a worker in
           Baja California,  back sprayer in STC  Salinas
           Transplants.  It is a greenhouse where we
           grow celery and cauliflower.  So I am working
           in there for 10 years, maybe  more, and before
           we were  very  upset  because we weren't
           receiving any training in there.  I am talking
           about four or five years ago. But now, we are
           getting the right training and  and everything in
there and now we are working better than
before. But the workers are very scared about
the pesticides and every one of the workers in
there works with lots of pesticides and is
scared.  I think  the  best   thing  for  the
Commissioner or for the people who are in
charge of that thing is to give more education
to the workers.  Because even some of the
workers can read and speak English. I think
this  is  the best  thing  to  do—get more
information about pesticides, the sickness, the
illness to us, to the workers.  That's all I can
say.  Thank you.

   William  Young:  My name is William
Young.   I'm a rose grower  in Watsonville.
Before I was a rose grower, as I was growing
up I  also was a farmworker. I worked for my
family farm. I handled and sprayed pesticides
at the farm. In fact, I was the main person
who was doing all the spraying on  the farm.
I understand the concern of the farmworker.
I understand how important it is to have a
safety program.  But I also  understand the
economics of the business of growing flowers.
We are impacted by imports.  It's a worldwide
market now; it's not just a California market.
The economic strain  on our business and
various regulations is impacting our industry.
   I'm  not going to talk very long tonight
because  many  of the other growers  and
managers have already pointed out the major
points.  But, in our nursery, I just want to
point out there are other growers  who are
trying to  implement  an  integrated pest
management program (by that I mean that
they are using less toxic  chemicals or using
predators for the control of spider mites). We
234  California

 are also doing a lot of monitoring. With our
 farm extension people we are working for an
 integrated pest management program which
 will be safe for our industry and also for our
 farmworkers.  I ask EPA to look into various
 alternative methods that we are using and try
 to set up a shorter REI interval on some of
 the  safer materials that  we are using and
 experimenting with the farm extension agents.
    This industry involves all of us. We need
 to   work  together—government agencies,
 grower, and farmworker. We need all, as one
 unit. This is not pros or cons. This is needing
 to work as a unit.  I think that if we put our
 heads together we can come up with a suitable
 program. Thank you.

   James Nagamine:  Good evening.  My
 name is James Nagamine and I am employed
 by Nagamine Nursery in Watsonville.  We are
 rose growers and I am also this year President
 of the California Floral Council which is a
 statewide organization of about 132 nursery
 operations.  This is a voluntary position that I
    If I can indulge a little bit, I'd like to give
 you  a  little background on myself and our
 operation. My parents came over from Japan
 in the mid-'50s as immigrants, worked as field
workers, lived their American dream, saved up
 enough money,  and  started a little nursery
 operation in  Watsonville in the early '60s.
 And if you look  at most of the nursery
 operations  across  the  state, this is  not an
 isolated story.  The majority of the people are
 family-operated nurseries and they are owner-
 operators. They are not absentee owners. If
 you look at the majority of the nurseries, they
are small operations, with everybody in the
family working alongside with the workers.
We've been in operation since 1963. I don't
want to take up too  much time because I
know it's getting late and a lot of us have to
get up early to go to work and I appreciate the
    You've been hearing a lot  of opinions
tonight. I'd like to take a look at a third party
—someone that's not in agriculture or in a
government regulatory situation. I called an
insurance company that provides most of the
worker's compensation for the nurseries in
this area and I asked them, "What's our safety
record?"  They said  well, if you  look at
worker's compensation, they have  what is
called a loss ratio with the amount of money
they take in and the amount of money they
expect to pay out on not just pesticide-related
claims, but on all claims—lifting claims; walking
into  an operation, slipping on a floor;  all
claims, not just spray-related claims—and they
were saying that the average is about 65% for
all industries. All industries.  And I said, "That
sounds kind of high.  What is it for nursery
operations?" They said, "It's around 30% or
less,  and the last ten  years it's  been below
   I don't want to go over a lot of points that
a lot of people have made, which I think are
good points. But I just want to bring up that
our industry is not one—we're not a  dirty
industry; we've been clean given our history
and  looking at our track record—not just
coming  from us  but  coming  from  an
insurance company whose business it  is to
make money and to insure people who are
sick.  That's all I have to say.  Thank you.
                                                                      California  235

              Kay Rudolph: Before we close, I would
           just like to check and see if there are any
           others, perhaps  things  that you've heard
           tonight, you would  now like to  make  a
           comment. The floor is open if there are any
           others who would like  to make  a  brief
           comment.  If not, what I'd like to do... oh, yes,
           there is somebody. That's OK, you can make
           an additional comment.

              Speaker from Audience: The only thing I
           wanted to say, if you keep a record of every
           single worker who works with  pesticides in
           this area or in all the State of California, it will
           be more easy for us to know about those
           meetings instead  of waiting for a company to
           go and tell us.  It would be a meeting over
           here and you can go find new information and
           apply something to your own protection.  I
           appreciate that more.  It would be easy for
           you to call the news, the radio, information in
           the newspaper—for you guys, everything free.
           For  us, we pay for everything.   And the
           growers,  they are  supposed to have more
           communication with employees, especially the
           ones who work with pesticides and make sure
           they are using the right equipment to apply
           pesticides  because there is a lot of different
           stuff to use. And you need to buy the one
           that is appropriate for that specific employee.
           That's it.

              Dr. Lynn Goldman:  In closing, I want to
           once again thank all of you for coming here
           tonight.  And I will tell you that this is the
           third of these meetings that I have personally
           attended and, I think, the seventh one now
           for the program.  We  did hear  things that
were very unique in terms of the situation here
in this area.  Certainly, a lot of concerns with
the roses and cut flowers industry and the
nurseries  and  how  we  can  make the
standardworkable. And I will tell you that we
have  been working with the  cut  flowers
industry and I think we need to continue to
do so. I agree with the comment that the last
gentleman made that this is something that we
can work out if we all work together. I think
that that was absolutely right and in the spirit
of why we're here tonight.
    I also heard today some concerns  about
the one-quarter-mile notification.  Although
this is a national requirement, I will say that
this  is the first of these meetings where I've
really heard about problems that are arising.
And so I think that this is something that we
are really going to need to. work on.  We'll
need to work with the State  of California on
that issue and work with all of you.  It's an
interesting issue and, as I said, one that is new
to us tonight.
    Other issues that we've heard about, I will
say, are  quite consistent with some  of the
things that we've heard in other parts of the
country in that there seem to be issues with
what's the right  way  to  comply with the
posting requirements,  get the information
available, and there still seems to be a need for
training and education of all of those involved
in the process. One thing I'm going to take
back with me is a commitment to find the
resources to make sure that we can continue
those efforts because I think that it is apparent
that we need that.
    Last, and not least, were the concerns that
we  heard about the compliance with the
236  California

standards and that there is more work that is
needed there, as well.  That's another area
where we will work with the state.   I'm
encouraged by  the  fact  that the  state is
developing the new regulations to bring the
California standards and the federal standards
together.  I think that will help and I think
that that's going to require cooperation by the
region, the state, the counties, to make that
happen.  Obviously, just having the regula-
tions on paper  is not the  point of  the
regulations. The regulations  have to work.
They have to be implemented.  And that's
why we're here tonight.
    Again, thank you so much. I realize that
this has been a difficult issue for many of you.
It's  also  a very  important  one  and  it's
important to us to make to work right Thank
you so much.

    [Meeting adjourned]
                                                                      California  237

Registered Participants in the Salinas Public Meeting
          Juan Aguirre
          Teamsters Union 890

          Laurel Bell
          California Rural Legal Assistance

          Donald G. Bennett

          Rick Bergman
          Santa Cruz County Agricultural
          Commissioner's Office

          Yvette Black
          SoilServ Inc.

          Tim Brown
          Pajaro Valley Greenhouse

          Laura Caballero

          Jose Luis Carreno

          Salvador Carrillo
          Teamsters Union 890

          Tina Chapman
          Matsui Nursery

          Bob Chavez
          Dept. of Pesticide Regulation CAL-EPA
Ron Cisney
Olocco A6 Services

Leonard R. Cordova
Barlocker Insurance

Max Curiel
Farm Employers Labor Service

Louie Curtis
Green Valley Floral

John Donahue
Dept. of Pesticide Regulation CAL-EPA

Rosendo R. Franco
Salinas Transplant Inc.-Bud of California

Guillermina Garnica
Teamsters Union Local 890

Denise E. Graab
National Radio Project

Howard Hofmann
Campbell's Fresh

Don Howell
Pajaro Valley Greenhouses

Elaine Hunt
Agricultural Personnel Management
238  California

 Johnsen Nurseries Inc.

 Joe Karl
 Santa Barbara County Agriculture
 Commissioners Office

 Akira Kawihira
 Asahi Greenhouse

 Rick Kyutoky
 Kyutoky Nursery Inc.

 Robert Lievanos
 Safety Consult

 Luis Magana
 Organization de Trabajadores Agricolas de

Juanita Martinez
 Jack Olsen
 San Mateo County Farm Bureau

 Dr. Ana Maria Osorio
 Occupational Health Branch California
 Department of Health Services

; Frances Pabrua
 Monterey County Agricultural
 Commissioner's Office

 Joseph Prandini
 Betteravia Farms

 Ronald Pummer
 San Mateo County Dept. of Agriculture

 Jose Renteria
 Matsui Nursery

 Tobias Ris Marquez
Pete Mercado
Pemer Packing Co.

Mike Meuto
California Rural League Association

Alan Mitchell
California Pajarosa

Tash Miyashita
Miyashita Nursery, Inc.

James Nagamine
California Floral Council/Nagamine Nursery
 Robert A. Roach
 Monterey County Agricultural
 Commissioner's Office

 Don Rochester
 Monterey County Agriculture
 Commissioners Office

 Carlos Ruiz-Martinez
 California Public Health Foundation

 Roy Sakae
 Roy Sakae Roses
                                                                     California  239

          Sam Sakamero
          Saq Nursety

          John P. Sestito

          Bodie Taylor
          Top Quality Farms

          Barbara Todd
          California Dept. of Food & Agriculture

          Grady S. Van Cleve
          Western Farm Service

          C. Watte
          California Farm Bureau Federation
Jennifer Weber
University of California at Davis— IPM
Education and Publications

Mark Yamaguchi
Yamaguchi Greenhouse, Inc.

Kenji Yonemitsu
Central Coast Greenhouse

William Young
Aspen Nursery

Melanie Zavala
University of California at Davis
IPM Education and Publications
240  California

Site Visits and  Small Group  Discussions
           Farmworkers, Fresno, CA
           •   July 22,1996, 6:30 p.m.
           •   EPA staff met with Rudy Trevino of Lideres Campesinas and a group of farmworkers at the
              Mosqueda Community Center in Fresno, with Luis Magafta, Celia Prado, and Gloria
              Hernandez. Workers represented both field workers and packers.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —    Meeting participants highlighted the particular concerns of women farmworkers and
                    Mixtec workers.

              —    Reports of incidents of pesticide exposure and concerns about health effects
                    (miscarriages, nausea, rashes). Participants stated that workers are afraid to report,
                    and when they do, doctors are unable or unwilling to diagnose pesticide poisoning.

              —    Concerns that appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) is not being
                    distributed, or is distributed but not used due to heat stress.

              —    Workers reported that application records and warning signs are not being posted,
                    and it is difficult to obtain records from the foreman or from the Agricultural
                    Commissioner's office.

              —    Participants also noted a lack of •washing/decontamination facilities, bathrooms, and
                    clean water for drinking.

              —    The group felt that English-speaking workers •were given  information orally before
                    others.  Posters are difficult to read or workers have no time to read them.

              —    Workers are not sure where to go with complaints, do not feel comfortable
                    contacting the Agricultural Commissioner's Office, and lack a network  of support.

              —    According to participants, training may be given to foremen but is not  passed down
                    to workers (prior to WPS, California law required foremen to be trained).  Farm
                    labor contractors do not want to train workers and seem  to think that workers do
                    not care about their health.
                                                                               California  241

           Chandler Farms, Selma, CA
           •  July 23,1996, 9:00 sum.
           •  EPA and state staff visited a 500-acre vineyard and orchard (peaches, plums) and observed
              harvest work.  A total of 95 workers were on the payroll last year. The farm has a labor
              camp for 13 persons in three units; other workers live off-site.  Five certified applicators/
              employees of the farm apply pesticide sprays.
           •  EPA and state staff met with owner Bill Chandler.
           •  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —    Owner expressed interest in closer alignment of pre-harvest and restricted entry

              —    Owner received permission from the state to have all pesticide application records in
                     a binder hanging from the washing/decontamination site. As a result, he believes the
                     information is more accessible and more easily managed.

           AmeriCorps & Sponsor Organizations, Fresno, CA
           •  July 23,1996,12:00 p.m.
           •  EPA and state staff discussed training issues with AmeriCorps trainers from the California
              Human Development Corporation and Proteus, Inc., and representatives from an insurance
              company and the University of California Extension Service (Fresno).
           •  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

              —    According to AmeriCorps workers, the Agricultural Commissioner's office is not
                     telling growers about free training from AmeriCorps because they consider it
                     inappropriate to promote one organization when private organizations also offer
                     training.  It was suggested that the Agricultural Commissioner release a list of
                     qualified trainers with  a description of each organization.

              —    Need for more quality control of training and testing following the training.
                     AmeriCorps trainers do not use videos; they give a presentation followed by

              —    Continuing reports of growers hiring only workers who already have WPS safety
                     training verification cards.  AmeriCorps trainers and their sponsors would like to see
                     these training verification cards made mandatory.

              —    Concerns expressed that the WPS is not enforceable yet.

242  California

   —    The insurance company represented at the meeting offers free worker training for its
          clients, but this may change in the future. The company uses a video and hand-outs,
          explains why workers are being trained, and summarizes information.

Farm Labor Contractors and Agricultural Employers, Fresno, CA
•  July 23,1996,1:30 p.m.
•  EPA and state staff discussed training issues with farm labor contractors, growers, and the
   Cooperative Extension Service.
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —    Logistical difficulties of providing training. Need to make it easier for small
          establishments (80 to 120 acres) that try to provide training in-house.

   —    Participants noted the need for a training hand-out that any grower can distribute,
          then follow up to see if workers understood the training.

   —    High turnover of farm labor contractors; need more train-the-trainer classes for

   —    Cost of training is justified; fewer workers are taking pesticide containers home, etc.
          If growers took greater precautions jobs (e.g., not leaving pesticide containers out,
          posting fields), there would be no need for training. Some employees stated that
          their workers are primarily concerned with getting their pay, not other issues.

   —     Concern of growers about liability with regard to workers whom they have trained
           and given WPS safety training verification cards to.

   —     Difficulties with training verification cards: workers lose them or forget they have
           them. Sometimes workers cannot read or write. Having a training verification card is
           no proof that worker has been trained adequately.

    —     Participants expressed the need for more EPA-approved training materials. Videos
           developed by agricultural chemical companies do  not fulfill the needs of seasonal

    —     Participants expressed the need for more knowledgeable inspectors familiar with
           agricultural production. Growers need to do both WPS and OSHA training at the
           same time in order to save time, money.

                                                                        California  243

               —     Suggestion that EPA create an employer/labor advisory committee to come up with
                      simple ways to comply.

           Fordel, Inc., Mendota, CA
           •   July 24,1996, 9:00 a.m.
           •   EPA and state staff visited this 500-acre farm (cantaloupes) and observation of melon
               harvest. Fordel has 500 employees; with turnover, averages 1,200 workers/year.
           •   Discussion with owner John LeBoeuf.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

               —     Fordel has created database of training records and a binder that has safety
                      information, application records, etc. Application records are also put in office

               —     Fordel started using biological controls six years ago. Fordel is participating with
                      USDA and National Academy of Sciences in writing a book on precision agriculture
                      and lower application rates.

           Monterey County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner
           •   July 24,1996, 9:00a.m.
           •   EPA and state staff met with Francis Pabrua and Robert Roach, Monterey Agricultural
               Commissioner's Office.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

               —     In 1980, Monterey was the first county to have an ordinance to post treated fields.
                     There are about 38,000 farmworkers in the county.  Lettuce alone has about 200
                      crews working per day, with 40-50  harvesters in a crew.

               —     Office has 30 inspectors doing lettuce quality inspections. By contrast, 10 inspectors
                     are dedicated to pesticide use activities, including WPS.

               —     Inspectors conduct about 200 investigations annually.  Each inspector is assigned a
                      section of the county and gets to know the growers. The office emphasizes a
                     philosophy of improving compliance through education.

               —    Misunderstanding that notification  must be given  to every person who lives within a
                     quarter mile of the area, not just workers who come within a quarter mile of a treated
                     area on the establishment.
244  California

Matsui Nursery, Monterey, CA
•  July 24,1996, 2:00 p.m.
•  EPA and state staff met with Tina Chapman and Jose Renteria, who led a tour of the
   greenhouse. Built in the 1960s, the nursery produces 2 million square feet of roses and
   500,000 square feet of other flowers.
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —    Costs have gone up to comply with regulations, including the WPS. It takes several
          weeks to train each of Matsui's 160 to 180 employees to meet all regulatory
          requirements, according to operators.

   —    Cut flower production requires a lot of hand labor.  Workers may work 16-hour days.
          The plant needs to be perfect or is thrown out. Roses are cut at least twice a day
          (morning and afternoon), beginning with two hours of harvesting at 7 a.m. Each
          plant flowers 10 times per year.

   —    Matsui uses hot water treatments on cut flowers as an alternative to pesticides.
          University of California (Davis) and pesticide companies come to Matsui to do
          research trials.

Farmworkers and Labor  Representatives, Salinas, CA
•  July 24,1996, 8:00 p.m.
•  EPA staff met with 15  farmworkers; representatives of Teamsters, United Farm Workers,
   Independent Agricultural Workers Union, California Rural Legal Assistance.
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —     Some participants advocated the elimination of pesticide use.  Participants stated
           that violations and incidents still occur; the problem belongs to the community; not
           just to the grower, chemical company, or EPA.

   —     Reports continue of pesticide exposure incidents, symptoms of pesticide poisoning
           not recognized by doctors, lack of washing/decontamination facilities.

   —     Workers expressed a need for more information about the chemicals they are dealing
           with. They asked: How can workers know if they have been exposed to chemicals in
           a nearby field?  How will a worker know if an exposure from years ago caused an
           illness today? Participants asserted that neither farm labor contractors nor
           applicators know much about laws or pesticides.

                                                                       California   245

               —     Participants expressed concerns about the toxicity of methyl bromide and questioned
                      the need for its use. They stated that only 10% of farmers currently use it.

               —     Participants stated that workers need to see that enforcement works and that they
                      won't be fired, in order to be encouraged to report incidents/violations. Violations
                      should result in large fines, according to attendees.

               —     Participants felt that Agricultural Commissioner's offices see their job as protecting
                      growers, and therefore advocated giving WPS enforcement responsibility to another

               —     Participants recommended improving systems for reporting violations.  Workers do
                      not know whom to call and they lack trust in the Agricultural Commissioner's
                      offices. They stated that current office hours and their limited access to telephones
                      were problematic. Information on the process for reporting violations should be
                      disseminated through radio, television, etc., in workers' languages.

               —     Participants gave avorable responses to EPA's suggestion of appointing an adjunct,
                      community-based person selected by the community to improve reporting and assist
                      in enforcement efforts.

           Kohatsu Strawberry Farm,  Salinas area, CA
           •   July 25,1996, 9:00 a.m.
           •   EPA and state staff visited a 120-acre strawberry farm and met with Paul Kohatsu, a third
               generation strawberry grower. Kohatsu farms 120 acres of strawberries, owns over 900 acres,
               and contracts over 5,000 acres throughout California.
           •   Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

               —     Owner uses little migrant labor and relies on a stable, non-union workforce. The
                      owner stated he does his own training and has a three-day harvest rotation to allow
                      for spraying and re-entry periods.

               —     Minor use for specialty crops is a huge issue because the grower cannot pass the cost
                      of pesticides onto the consumer. In the last 20 years, they have been working more
                      with integrated pest management (IPM).

               —     The grower uses methyl bromide and believes that nothing else works as well.
246  California

   —    The Monterey Agricultural Commissioner's office has been working with the
          University of California (Berkeley) and the California Department of Pesticide
          Regulation for the past four years trying to breed resistant strains of berries. Methyl
          bromide is used to control root diseases that can go down 10-30 feet or more below
          the surface.

   —    The owner reported that virtually all spraying in the area is done under the advice of
          a pest control advisor.                  :

Misionero Vegetables, Salinas, CA
•  July 25,1996,11:00 a.m.
•  EPA and state staff toured an in-house laboratory for pesticide residue testing and met with
   laboratory scientists. Misionero set up its own in-house, state-accredited lab in 1990 in order
   to obtain same-day results from testing of samples for pesticide residues during harvest
•  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

   —    Very little aerial application is done on the establishment because of the expense,
          high wind conditions in the area, and small plot size. The company tries to find
          alternatives to chemical use.

   —    Pest control advisor has a 20-year working relationship, is paid by salary, not
          commission, so he has  no incentive to use more chemicals. California is adding a
          new IPM category for pest control advisor licensees.

   —    To meet sometimes more stringent Canadian tolerance levels, the company has to
          wait several days to harvest to let the pesticide degrade sufficiently.

   —    Misionero's primary labor contractor has gone through the state-accredited pesticide
          safety trainer course in  California and Arizona. Workers are updated on pesticide
          safety practices every three months..

   —    Misionero is still determining where  to place the central posting. Every morning, the
          primary labor contractor informs all of the farm labor contractors where applications
          have been made so that they can give oral notification. They prefer the California
          skull & cross-bones warning sign because the workers are used to it.
                                                                       California  247

           Clfnica de Salud, Salinas, CA
           •  July 25,1996,1:30 p.m.
           •  EPA and state staff visited a health care clinic and met with Dr. Maximiliano Cuevas and Dr.
              Rafael Siqueros about reporting of pesticide incidents.
           •  Among the issues discussed at the meeting were:

           •  —    California's Health & Safety Code requires that doctors report any suspected
                     pesticide cases within 72 hours.  According to a state official, a dramatic, unexplained
                     decline in investigations into reported pesticide incidents occurred between 1995
                     (107 investigations) and 1996 (16 investigations).

              —    The doctors observed that continuing under-reporting of pesticide incidents may be
                     due to: ignorance of reporting requirement or reluctance on the part of physician
                     assistants and nurse practitioners to initiate reporting process, high turnover of
                     workers, reluctance of illegal aliens to seek timely treatment; racial and class-based
                     discrimination, and lack of public attention to pesticides.

              —    Suggestions for making other physicians aware of the reporting requirement and of
                     symptoms of pesticide poisoning included: newspaper and journal advertising, use of
                     800 numbers with adequate staffing; offering a class as part of an overall primary
                     conference that physicians are likely to attend, and person-to-person delivery to
                     clinics of information that is user-friendly.
248  California

Transcripts of Site Visits
           Meeting with Farmworkers,
           Fresno, CA, July 22,1996

              Kay Rudolph  pPA  Facilitator]: The
           purpose of this meeting is to help you get a
           better understanding of pesticides issues and
           the role of the Worker Protection Standard to
           help farmworkers to help themselves.  So we
           are here for you to ask us questions and to
           give us  an opportunity to ask you questions.
           Who's starting now?

              Luis Magana [Speaking in Spanish with
           English  interpreter]:  I am Luis Magana. For
           two years  and a half I  have worked and
           personally   taught   the   community  of
           farmworkers.   In  this entire  area,  from
           Antigua to  the   north  of  Sacramento,
           California, I have discovered many possibilities
           that under federal  and state laws  concern
               You said earlier that you wanted to start
           this meeting with some recent information.
           Well, I  have  been sick for three weeks and
           remembered a fellow country man named Jose
           Martinez. He was picking grapes one day and
           it was raining.  From  that day forward he
           began to feel sick.  That day I noticed that he
           had lots of leaves adhered to his head and
           today I see his case is  serious. The rain and
           the effects of leaves adhered to his head might
           have caused brain damage.  I'm sure he is not
           here today for distance and financial reasons.
           The company says the spray has nothing to do
           with  his problems and Jose  says  he  is
convinced that his problems are caused by
pesticides because they had been spraying the
farm that day and the farmers don't comply
with the federal law on pesticide control.
    ... I wanted to start the meeting with this
specific example because it is the most recent
one that has occurred.

    Kay  Rudolph:   Has  he said that Mr.
Martinez has taken his case to an attorney?

    Luis  Magana: The lawyer also says that
there is nothing wrong with Mr. Martinez. He
is looking for another lawyer.

    Kay  Rudolph:   And how did all this
happen?  Where were you picking?

    Luis  Magana: En Federal North... The
problem is that Mr. Martinez took three weeks
before he reported the accident.

    Kay Rudolph: Three weeks?

    Luis Magana: One, two, three weeks,  I
don't know for sure. [Inaudible]...

    Kay Rudolph:  Can you repeat the name
of the sick man?

    Luis Magana: His name is Jose Martinez.
I have his permission to speak on his behalf at
this meeting because he  is too far away.   I
asked him, he told me I could speak for him.
                                                                               California  249

              Kay Rudolph: Has any investigation been

              Luis Magana: I don't know at what phase
           the case is now.  He says he doesn't know
           what is going on now because he never had a
           case like this before.  I wanted to start the
           meeting with a specific example because this
           incident can happen to any male or female
           worker in the farm. I also want the law to say
           that if any human life is contaminated  with
           pesticides, that farmer must give the worker
           and his family all kinds of urban protection.
              I was driving once on Route 50 and I saw
           a worker spraying on almond trees.  He had
           no  gloves  or  any  type  of impermeable
           [protection].  I  asked him why he was not
           wearing protective clothing, right?  Because it
           is very harmful to his health if he doesn't  wear
           it.  He said, "It's too hot." This means that
           when workers are spraying, it is not mandated
           by the farmer to wear protective clothing.
              I'm not saying that's how all the workers
           are, but in most cases, the farmer can't care
           less about the worker's health. They only care
           about going on with the work and the rest is
           of no interest to them.
               A lot of the camps are horrible. Many of
           them don't have soap to bathe or -water in the
           bathrooms to wash your hands before eating.
           What  I   know  through  many  of  my
           connections with workers who pick tomatoes
           is that these tomatoes have been sprayed with
           chemicals and if the workers don't wash their
           hands before eating it would be harmful to
           their health. [Inaudible]...
    I know that there have been experts from
the government  whose  assistance  to  the
workers and the  information they provide
about chemicals is very helpful.  It has been
instructive in helping workers learn about
chemicals. [Inaudible]...
    I only wanted to share this information
with you.  This has been  a great experience.
With regards to knowledge and reading, I have
a general education and I have spoken in the
language  that I  know,  in my  own way.
Another issue is that many of the contractors
who some are Mexicans, say in a degrading
way, "These people do not deserve all of these
federal laws. They don't educate us because
they consider us lower than them.  They want
to keep us ignorant so that we don't get to
know the  federal law."
    [Inaudible]... She would like to take your
photo to  take it to Washington as evidence
that they spoke with you personally.

    Kay Rudolph:  Has the  state inspector
been here to conduct an investigation?

    Luis Magana: No.

    Kay Rudolph:  Have you seen any official
or inspector from the government?

    Luis  Magana:  No.  Gloria,  the  female
foreman,  said: "We already spoke with the
inspector, but you didn't see them.  I have
already spoken with them."

    Kay Rudolph:  Did they say, "You haven't
seen them?"
250  California

    Luis Magana: Yes, they said, "I  have
 spoken with them, they checked everything
 and all is well." But I know they haven't been
 here, if they came it had to be on Saturdays.
 I say, "No, everything is not well," and they
 get mad at me because sometimes there is no
 soap to wash your hands nor towels to dry
 your hands.  Sometimes I tell things to the
 foremen and they respond, "It is best not to
 have an" inspector here because the farmer
 already spoke with the inspectors and all is  all
    On the 19th of this month I met a worker
 who was ill because of pesticides. He had
 been foreman for two years in the asparagus
 fields and he wasn't the only,one infected.
 Because  he  had  not registered with the
 California State Department of Agriculture he
 thought he did not have any rights. He had
 been living and working in  California for 30
 years  and he  didn't  know that the  state
 maintains records of farmworkers and that the
 office even existed. I took him on the 19th to
 the Office of Agriculture and they gave us a
 detailed map and he was told that the copy of
 his records would cost  $20, plus additional
 costs for preparing the records. None of the
 inspectors spoke  English.  Only a secretary,
 named Angela, spoke some Spanish. I forgot
 her last name; she told us that the workers
who left for Mexico were mojaditos [the wet
 ones], a demeaning way to call them.

    Kay Rudolph: Have the workers asked
what the rules associated with pesticides are?

    Luis Magana: There is a line of authority.
The worker must start talking with  the
 foreman, who later interviews the worker.
 Then he contacts the farmer.  However, the
 communication stops between the worker and
 the farmer. The first thing the foreman says
 is, "What are you doing, are you acting as a

    Kay Rudolph: Has the foreman told you
 that there is a specific place in the farm where
 the worker  can look at a list of  all  the
 pesticides that had been used in the last three
 days  and that they  have  the right to obtain
 that information?

    Luis Magana: To know about pesticides is
 a  personal experience for me.  The workers
 don't even know what  the pesticides are.
 Maybe  he knows that the field gets sprayed,
 but he  doesn't know where he should step
 because he doesn't know  how dangerous the
 spray is. The man  who •works in the office
 doesn't know. Maybe the supervisor knows,
 but not the worker.  When the worker calls
 the office and he is asked which pesticide he
 came  in contact with, they say, "I don't know,
 I only know they sprayed  insecticide."

    Workers:  What they are really saying is, "I
 cannot  pronounce that word," or "I cannot
 pronounce this  pesticide, I have a mental
 block."  My personal opinion is  that what the
 office workers are really saying is, "You don't
 know how to read  or write in English or
 Spanish. Even if the signs -were written you
wouldn't understand them." There are big
 posters  out there, this big, all those posters,
 they can't read them! Secondly, even if they
 could read they wouldn't understand them.
                                                                      California  251

             Kay Rudolph:  Let's get her testimony.

             Worker; I work in the tomato packing
          plant What happens is there are hot tomatoes
          and cold tomatoes. Sometimes we are working
          and we feel our noses, eyes and throat itching
          and we feel nauseated.  Some years ago some
          pregnant women lost their babies.  They don't
          give us protection. They treat us like animals.
          Sylvia, you had some information to share.

              Worker: I was doing cleaning work at the
          plant one Thursday. It had been raining hard
          and the wind was blowing strong.  The doors
          of the plant were closed. There was a woman
          there who began getting very  sick.   The
          (female)  foreman asked her, "What's wrong
          with you, woman? What have you all done?
          I can't open the doors because of the wind."
              Some women started vomiting every five
          minutes.  The supervisor was called. He came
          in and saw what was going on and he stopped
          the working line because this was not the first
          time this incident had  occurred, it  had
          occurred many other times.  It would be 10
          years now, but I was there the  first time it

              Kay Rudolph: Did they send you home
          this time?

              Workers: No, they sent us immediately, in
          the rain, to another packing plant  They didn't
          care whether we got wet or not.
              When we  got there they said, all of you
          who are  throwing up, go over there, those
          with  headaches,  over  there,  those  with
          stomach aches, over there, etc.  We all had
headaches. The farmer came and he said to
the foreman, why didn't she wait until later in
the day to have that work done.  We said
something had to be done about this. They
asked the five of us who were sick to stay
there for  four hours with a mask on.  We
asked the supervisor that even though we had
only worked four hours that day, we wanted
to be paid for the entire day because what
happened was not our fault. He said that he
could only pay them four hours because he
didn't know what was going on there. By any
chance  he didn't know that they had been
killing us in there? In addition, we had been
required to stay there another four hours with
that mask on.

    Kay Rudolph: Are the packing houses
located inside of the farm?

    Workers: Yes.

    Kay Rudolph: Luis was  talking earlier
about a man who had been working in the
farms for 30 years and he didn't know that the
offices  of the  Department of Agriculture
officials existed.  My question is:  Do you all
know if these offices exist?

    Worker:  My opinion is that the workers
think that the labor offices claim on wages.

    Unidentified Speaker: There is a difference
between the two labor agencies. Let me give
you an  example.  A couple of years ago I got
a case on wages.  I was trying to change the
 law of overtime for irrigators. Farmers don't
want to pay them overtime, but irrigators are
252  California

required to be on the board irrigating 24 four
hours a day. These three brothers came to me
and they had  perfectly recorded  all their
overtime. They worked on the citrus and the
citrus required sprinkle irrigation and the only
time  they would  have to  deal with the
sprinklers is if the sprinklers stopped going
around and they would make them go around
again. They took real good notes. The reason
why I bring this to you is because these guys
are real smart.  They documented all their
overtime and they were able to surprise "bust"
the foreman I don't know how many times.
    We have Alejandra Medina, an intern in
my office. The women attending this meeting
represent her internship project. Alejandra
Medina is the  daughter of a fellow worker.
One of her projects was to interview women
at the farms who had not had the opportunity
to speak to anyone about their situations. We
asked her to review the interviews and give
you a small presentation about what they
found because it was very important for this
to be shared. We are asking for 10 minutes to
speak about this.

    Kay Rudolph:  Can this information be
shared with EPA?

    Speaker: We have to talk to the workers
because the ones that we interviewed wanted
to give us the  information, but wanted  to
make sure that their names would not be
disclosed because they already had problems
at work. The release of information form that
they signed indicates that information can be
released but not their names.
    Alejandra Medina: My name is Alejandra
Medina. I have conducted these interviews
with farmworker women.  The whole view of
these  women  is  that  there  is  a lot of
discrimination in the fields. One lady told me
that there are a couple of Anglos working in
the fields and before they spray they come to
tell them first so they can get out of the field.
She says after they spray they don't come to
work for two days because they can't stand the
smell and they don't want to get headaches.
Some  of the workers are very sensitive to
chemicals and they get rashes.  Others never
go to the hospital for examinations because
they are afraid of the results.  This lady said
that some chemical fell in her hand and she
has had a rash for a long time.  They are not
allowed to wear gloves.  Also, they get very
hot in them.  Having chemicals in their hands,
the sweat makes the rashes in their hands
worse.   Others  said bathrooms  are not
provided and when they are provided they are
located far away.
    I also interviewed a man who told me
that he got infected with pesticides. This man
did go to the doctor and the doctor told him
that if he  would  go  with  him  to the
commissioner,  he would  tell the  com-
missioner what this man's problem was.
    Another lady told me that at the packing
plants when the tomatoes fall to the ground
they don't get picked up and they stay there
smashed up and smelly. When it gets very hot
there,  the smell of the  smashed  tomatoes
together with the pesticides  and the messy
workplace gives them headaches.
                                                                     California  253

              Worker My name is Nicolas.  I work in a
          company where they plant sweet potatoes
          with a plow tractor. They keep the water to
          water the plants in a tank of water behind his
          tractor.   They mix the  water with the
          "medicine" (pesticide).

              Worker [Wife of the previous speaker]: He
          calls the pesticide "medicine."  He comes in
          contact with the pesticide when he plows and
          the dirt is pulled up against his hands and face.
          Oneway or another he comes in contact with
          the poison.

              Kay Rudolph:  Has the farmer or any
          other group given the workers any training
          about protection against pesticides?

              Workers: My husband takes this class, but
          they  don't  give  it  in  a  way  that  they
          understand.  What he makes is not worth it.
          They don't bring them water.  They don't
          provide toilets.  The workers have to go to the
          fields for their personal  needs  and to the
          canals to wash  their hands before they eat so
          they don't have to swallow "poison" too.

              Unidentified Speaker:  I had a case in High
          Point a few years ago. My client reported that
          there  were   no  sanitary   facilities   for
          farmworkers in that ranch.  That night I sent
          a fax to Caleche informing him about the case
          and indicating the exact location of the ranch
          by means of a map. We "busted" the guy,  the
          same contractor that we  had "busted"  on
          Thanksgiving Day. Later we sent a letter to
          Caleche and he called us saying that there were
          toilets on the ranch, but the space was used to
store pesticides.  Then we went back to the
ranch to continue the  investigation.  They
don't want us to go back this year.  There is
no   coordination  between  Caleche  and
[Inaudible]. This year we sent another fax to
Caleche on the same contractor and they were
busted again. Another time they said that they
had bathrooms but now the bathrooms have
pesticides. We faxed Caleche again. Caleche
gave them a "ticket" for storing pesticides in
a place 'where they are not supposed to be
kept. In other words, I pressured the guy, but
his license was  never revoked.  I called the
Commissioner of Labor, but he said, "This is
ridiculous."   His excuse was that the five
tickets he got were not for violations at the
same ranch.  They have to be on the same
ranch for his license to  be revoked.

    Kay  Rudolph: Let's continue with the

    Worker:  My name is Francisco Gomez.
I was a member of [Inaudible]. This  organi-
zation [Inaudible]... I worked three years ago
as an irrigator.  I have always worked as an
irrigator.  I worked there  by Los Angeles
South in a  place  called Prieta.  I used  to
irrigate the fields.  They never told me that
that water was already contaminated  with
chemicals. They kept the water in tanks of 50
to 100 pounds. They used to tell us that what
they put in there was  the medicine  for the
plants.  Those plants had to be irrigated with
hoses. Sometimes the hoses would get stuck
and because of the pressure the water would
get on my face and clothes. Soon my eyes
began to itch and from that day forward my
254  California

eyes remained red. Sometime later the fore-
man started to say to me, you're going to kill
your eyes.  Then they gave me a job killing
animals. They gave me like a sack to kill them,
but they didn't tell me how to kill them so I
used to kill them with my hands. Although I
•would •wash my  hands, they would stay like
painted blue or purple. I would eat with my
hands  like  that because in the beginning I
didn't  know what it was, but about  three
months later I began to feel headaches and
dizziness.  I didn't know why. The foreman
asked me  if I  was a  smoker because of the
color of my hands.
   In those days there were no toilets in the
camps.  There were many workers, normally
from 20 to 30 persons, but they put two or
three workers  in different places.  However,
there were no bathrooms in those camps.
Although there was water far away they didn't
want us to go there because they didn't want
us to waste time.  I remained in that camp for
a while and  then I  moved to the North
because I was told there were more protec-
tion  laws here.  They say that, but I  think
there's  nothing here.  What they want is that
the work gets done and that's it, period.  I
have worked here with many farmers in the
tomatoes, apricots, oranges, lemons, etc. All
those plants have chemicals.  When I  spray
they don't tell us how long should we stay
away until we return to work. The first thing
they say is, "There are the posters," but they
don't explain when can we return to work.
What they want is   that we  do  the work.
That's all.
    Kay Rudolph:  Has anyone seen the poster
that says, "Keep out,  this place has been
sprayed with pesticides?"

    Unidentified Speaker:  There is another
poster that presents a skull to indicate danger.

    Worker:  It is not to their advantage to
post that skull here.

    Worker: I have seen a poster like this on
television, but I have never seen one like this
out here.

    Kay  Rudolph: We are making presen-
tations, what area are you from?

    Worker: I am [Inaudible]. I work in the
fields, with almonds. I don't know what they
put in those almonds to preserve them. We
don't have bathrooms there.  About two years
ago  I started getting sick and  I told the
foreman, you know I am starting to get sick.
Friday I went home, I took a shower, and I
started itching that night On Saturday,  I went
to the doctor but he wasn't in.  I thought if I
would put alcohol on it that it would stop
itching.  That was wrong.  I went to the
hospital on Sunday.  The doctor asked me
what do I do at work.  He gave me three
injections right then and there.  I asked my
daughter to ask the doctor what was wrong
with me and he said, "Oh, just straighten up
the bill at work, they are responsible for what
    The shots gave me immediate relief.  I
asked the doctor what do I tell them at work
and  he said, "Just go  to work. Tell the
                                                                      California  255

          foreman, the foreman will tell the supervisor
          and the supervisor will tell the secretary and so
          on." Although I paid him $20, he didn't give
          me any receipts or anything.  I went back
          home.  The following day I went to buy the
          two prescriptions. At work, they wanted to
          know  exactly what happened,  what I was
          eating, etc.  They said that I didn't want to
          work and so on.  Two weeks later another
          woman began to feel sick. She didn't go to
          the doctor. She went to [Inaudible]... and the
          only thing they gave her was a lotion.

              Worker: I spoke with [Inaudible]...

              Worker Another problem at camps here
          is that there is no water and the bathrooms
          are not clean. [Inaudible]... Discrimination is
          also rampant.

              Worker. My name is Celia Garcia. I have
          not worked for two years because where  I
          used to work I hurt  my hip.  It still hurts
          because I haven't  received any treatment.  I
          went to the doctor on my own and I asked
          him to send me to a chiropractor. He didn't
          send me. Instead he took X-rays. I told him
          that my bones were broken, because I didn't
          want to say that my nerves were inflamed and
          the only thing he told me was that my bones
          were not broken, that they were shrinking.
          This statement made me believe that what he
          really  meant was that  my  nerves were

              Worker: My name is Nydia Lopez and I
          live in the area of Madeira.  I work in  a
          packing  house   packing  fruit:   peaches,
mandarin, and apricots. Right now there is a
problem at the packing house.  The farmer
only cares for the fruit to get ripe fast.  He
puts a chemical on  them. When we go to
work early in the morning, he wants us to put
the fruit in these ovens where they would put
the chemicals on them. We are absorbing all
these chemicals. Soon after that, we begin
feeling  sick with dizziness and  headaches.
When I tell the foreman she says, "No, you
are going to work like this. Wait an hour and
the discomfort will go away by itself."
    What the farmer only wants is for the fruit
to get ripe to get them out of the packing
plant. He says that the pesticide will go away
with the fresh air. I don't know what pesticide
that is.

    Rudy Trevino: I am Rudy Trevino. I am
the  coordinator  for Lideres  Campesinas
Project. As I said before, the reason why it is
very important for us to have this meeting to
talk to you is because we care for your
situation. The women know that there's more
information that they wish they had more
time to explain. What they're saying right now
is something that has been happening for
years and years. What I'm concerned about as
part of Lideres Campesinas is that workers can
know or can find out what is the law, what are
the rules that companies have to go by, what
are the different things that they could do.
The problem is that they don't have anyone to
support them  when they want to file  a
complaint.  They feel like if they complain,
what  would  happen  is  that  either  the
supervisor or the person responsible will tell
them not to worry about it., it's nothing, it's
256  California

not going to hurt you when they know the
truth is that it is hurting them.
   In terms of myself, I also was a counselor
for 10  years,  but  before  that  I was  a
community organizer and the situation that
the women are talking about now, that men
are talking about now, that situation happened
to me. I was affected in a long term basis. I
always have problems, I  cannot say anything
that hasn't already been said. My relatives are
still -working in the fields.  They are having the
same  kind  of problems.  People come •with
runny noses watery eyes, having complaints of
headaches and not being able to sleep at night
because  of the problem  they are  going
through for several months while they are
working. They have dry skin.  Ever since I
•worked in the fields I have dry skin and I take
vitamin E or whatever. There's many, many
situations that are going on in the fields.
   What we want  to make sure is that EPA
takes  back the  problems that are going  on
right now,  which have been happening for
years  and  years.    Rules  are  fine,  but
implementation  is another thing.  Imple-
mentation is something that doesn't happen.
Workers can  complain,  workers go the
Commissioner of  Agriculture.   The  Com-
missioner maybe is not supportive enough.
Workers can know  about the  law, but  if
there's no support from the various agencies,
it doesn't matter how hard the worker tries to
help himself.

   Worker:  My name is Ed Castro.   I live
here in Fresno.  Everybody knows me here.
I was  invited to this meeting tonight by Luis
Saldana, because this is an important meeting.
One of the things I want to say is that the
cases that you have there are pesticide cases.
Many times in those cases the ranchers have
insurance to protect  the  workers.   The
problem is that many workers don't want to
complain because  if  they  work for  a
contractor, he is afraid the contractor will
report him to Immigration.  They don't want
workers to complain against their insurance.
That's why the insurance to cover the workers
in the farm doesn't work well.
    Another important thing is some time ago
I used to work at a health clinic and I noticed
that the doctors were not very knowledgeable
about pesticides and they did not report many
of the cases and the treatments were not very
appropriate for many cases.

    Worker:   They  have  no  respect for

    Worker:  My name is Catalino Pyrokolos.
It's Greek. I -wish I could speak in Spanish
but I don't speak it •well.  I work everyday in
the regulation that is  supposed to provide
protection to farmworkers  and  people who
apply pesticides and handle pesticides. There
are two things I would like to convey to you.
One is very brief. Thank you for making your
trip  to talk  to  us.   Your time and  your

    Worker:   I would like  to  make  a
parenthesis here  to tell you that the  laws that
exist in this country are unfair.  We are in a
country where the worker is abused, but on
the  other hand we  see  that there are
regulations that safeguard the worker. I -would
                                                                      California  257

     like to communicate to EPA that there should
     be enforcement on these  regulations.  We
     hope that we can see a change in our situation.
     What we all wish is that the different agencies
     would coordinate their efforts.

        Kay Rudolph: I am very pleased to have
     met you. We hope to see you Friday.

        Catalino Pyrokolos: I just basically wanted
     to say thank you for taking your time... And
     we will be checking all this information. Hold
     us to it One year from now we'll see where
     we are at
     are from.
Rudolph:  Please say what area you
        Worker: My name is Julia Regina and I
     come from Merced,  California.   I  am  a
     member of the Association or "Campesina"
     Women.   What  I  want  to share is that
     pesticides are not very necessary in the fields.
     In my  home  my husband and I  made  a
     tomato and squash garden, and he took care
     of the insects with salt instead of pesticides.
     We had mosquitos and he did not spray with
     pesticides, he just used salt and water. He took
     care of the insects and the garden looks good.
     The tomatoes are big like this, and the squash
     are this long. That's all.

        Worker: My name is Teresa Franco. I am
     also  from Merced.     I  am Julia  Regina's
     neighbor. We have the same problems. I work
     at a place where there are pesticides also.
     Right now we have a problem. They take time
out of our day for the time we go to the

   Kay Rudolph: For the men also?

   Teresa Franco:  Yes, to everybody.  We
have to write our names and numbers and the
time we leave to the time we came back. They
were doing this before the peach harvest, but
now they can't do  it  because of the  large
number of workers for the peach harvest.

   Kay Rudolph: Do they take the time from
your pay?

   Teresa  Franco:  I'm  not sure, I don't
know. That's all.

   Worker: My name is [Inaudible]...

   Kay Rudolph: And what is your job?

   Worker. Right now I am the Chairperson
pnaudible]... What I would like to share is that
I truly don't know how it feels to be working
in the fields or to have experience in pesticide
problems  but  I do  say  that it's tough
[Inaudible]... Not long ago, when I was young
I would accompany my parents to the fields,
but I don't remember that.

   Kay Rudolph [summarizing workers]:  In
terms of taking a child to the fields, sometimes
parents have to leave the kids resting inside
the car or if the parents are working under the
trees, the kids sit down near them under a
tree.  The  parents work from sundown to

   Workers: My name is Yolanda Hernandez
and I have worked for 16 years in a canning
plant and I  have  the  same problem of my
coworkers that every time we go  to  the
bathroom we have to account from the time
we go down to  the  time we come back.
Sometimes we have problems because the
ammonia pipes explode then workers start
running.  But the woman in the bathroom
faints and she just stays there until they come
to get her  out,  but they never  call  the
ambulance. They don't want to get reported.
Another  case was that the pot where they
make the curry for the carrots exploded and
the lady supervisor was the first one to run.

   Kay Rudolph: This fellow worker works in
Washington  at EPA and also works in the
enforcement of these  standards.  He writes
and works for the Department of Education
in Washington.   He  also  gives  classes

   Celia Prado: I am  Celia Prado. I work in
the Institute of California for Rural Studies
and I interviewed  137 persons in the county.
I asked them three questions:
   1. Do you know anything about the Office
for Environmental Protection?

   2.  Do  you know anything about the
Worker Protection Standard?

   3. Have you received training on pesticide

   Only 37  out of 137 workers interviewed
had been trained. They don't know what is
going on.  When I hear these problems, it
seems that I have been listening to them for
many years. I was saying the same thing to
my sisters here, that the stories I hear today
are the same stories that I heard for years and
years.  I am going to continue in English
because I express myself better in English.

    Worker: Can I say something?

    Kay Rudolph: Yes.

    Worker: A few minutes ago you were
saying you  are  also  working  with  the
environment.   You have  to  consider that
when you deal with something as unnatural as
pesticides, it is affecting the earth, the water,
workers and all the people that eat the food,
and  then the  air, everything, everything is

    Unidentified  Speaker:    Can  I  say
something?  The women, the workers, the
teachers here in the valley, I was shocked that
here they go around spraying like that. The
grapes, here they put pesticides on the grapes
with injections and in other places they spray
them. This is the first place in California to
do that.  Here they require the workers to
taste the grapes because the heat lowers down
sugar as you know and workers, before they
can even cut the branch, they have to taste the
grapes.  So, it's not like once every hour, it's
constantly and believe me, I have talked to
them having stomach aches, having headaches
and now I understand why when I was there
I wasn't hungry during my lunch break. There
is  a study that was done by Child Valley and
                                                                      California  259

           the Farmers  for Women that talks  about
           pesticides because the situations that happen
           before are still going on.
              Some of them say they give training but in
           some cases we busted a couple of contractors.
           Some of the women have complained but
           that's something they are not used to because
           it is not part  of their culture to be that self
           confident The other thing is that most of the
           training sessions that I am aware of are done
           for the foremen and never filter down to the
           workers.   I had  workers  using disposable
           aprons. I had cases where the toilet would be
           a hole in the ground. That's a violation of civil
           rights. I had people coming to me lots of
           times because I had the resources in my office
           to help.   I think what my fellow worker
           Agustino is saving is if you  go  to the  Labor
           Commissioner and you try to get the records
           as to when, where, date of the spray and all
           that you  have to expect  a lot of difficulty
           getting that information.   Another thing is
           that the education is being done but it's not
           being done by a grassroots program.  It's
           being done by sophisticated trainers. Back in
           '81 I  went out to the California Highway
           Patrol and I told them I was investigating the
           fields. Everywhere they told me there were no
           toilets. I asked them how I could enforce
           that.  They created what we  call courage.
           They publicized farmworker issues.  Obviously
           problems  did not  stop,  but  we saw  an
           improvement in the situation.

              Celia Prado:  One other thing that we
           want to add is we trained "campesina" [female
           farmworkers]  leaders last year  together and
           this is a  model that we must start to use
everywhere. In terms of the different projects
that we have, we are not only involved in
trying to provide a training in terms of the
Worker Protection  Standard,  but  we also
believe that it should also include domestic
violence. The kind of work we put together
was that last spring we trained 36 women on
a weekend and brought professionals that are
experts  in working with bilingual-bicultural
immigrant women.   At the same time, the
women  themselves, before  they  left, put
together a plan which consisted of going back,
working with their  local communities and
finding out ways to communicate that would
open  up  dialogue  to   disseminate  this
information, and to be heard. It also helped
that  women  victims of  domestic  violence
could hear that they are not alone  and that
they can do something to help themselves.
   Well,  last  year  we  put  together  11
conferences in four months for different
groups of women. At the end of that training
not only sharing the information, they put
together skits and a play on pesticides to be
added to all sorts of health issues in order to
bring women  to the conference because they
couldn't say  it was  on  domestic violence.
What ended  up happening  was  that the
women shared all their experiences and then
they went out and they started opening up a
dialogue.  This was  just like an epidemic,
spreading the  word. They were able to reach
more than   15,000  between  March  and
October last year.   Of course,  we were
recognized nationally for the kind of work we
did.  Do you think we would have received
this  turnout  if  we  had spoken  only on
pesticides? This is only one way to educate
260  California

women. The women themselves know that
when they go back to their communities the
other women are going to say yes these are
the things that we  know are happening.  If
they complain they know they are not going
to  get the  support.  After two  years  of
domestic violence education, they know that
now they have to work with agencies, why?
Because  it is not  enough  to  provide  the
information, you have to provide the access.
You have to provide the services, you have to
make sure that there is follow through with
the workers so they can get the support. If
there is  an agency out  there for you to
complain to, they'll take you, but you cannot
just provide education.  You have  to make
sure that they feel protected, they are going to
need that support and it worked last year and
we know that this year it's going to work.
    Each year you have to keep working with
those four groups, because it is not enough to
just give the information. There has to be a
network established with workers so they can
feel confident and empowered to be able to
go and  complain   because  they  will  not
complain if they know they're going to lose
their jobs. We want to keep in touch with you
to ask questions. It's really a whole community
of people who are involved with pesticides;
people who use it, who are around it, and who
are exposed to it. We need to educate all of
them about pesticide safety so we really want
to be in touch with you to find out what we
can do.

    Worker: You know, that would create a
problem for my [Inaudible]... What can you
ask about an asbestos problem and you call
the Labor Commissioner for information and
the answer  is  no.   How can  you trust
somebody if you don't trust the answers they
give  you?  This thing about doctors not
phoning, not  recognizing what's  wrong.
Something has to be done. With the anti-
immigrant position coming back in California
we see that a lot of our  clients  are treated
worse.  I've done community education, I can
make a lot statements for two or three days
and the people understand. But here you call
an agency that's so, so far away from reality.
To me EPA is there to save the rivers. The
connection with farmworkers and pesticides
seems so far  removed from the  EPA that I
wouldn't even know that EPA is involved.

   Unidentified Speaker:   In the first place
your  wife  should  be  able  to  call the
Commissioner  of Agriculture  and  that's
something he wants to know that we can do.

   Worker: My name is Richard [Inaudible].
Tomorrow I am going to be at various places
and I am going to be at the Salinas meeting.

   Worker [Leaving the meeting]: It's been a
pleasure and  we welcome the guests from
                                                                      California  261

           Meeting with Farm Labor
           Contractors and Agricultural
           Employers, Fresno, CA,
           July 23,1996

               (Beginning of meeting missing from tape]

               Speaker   I have a  comment and  a
           concern  that's   been  ongoing regarding
           training.  In  the beginning you didn't have
           classes  to  train  our  trainers.    In  our
           organization alone we've hired a minimum of
           100 trainers.   We  finally certified all of our
           trainers, but for a long time we didn't meet
           the full requirements, so we elected to give up
           all the EPA assistance.  Are you going to have
           more classes  for work trainers? I know that
           there's going to be only one train-the-trainer

               Speaker: I think this is a question for the
           Commissioners and their staff because EPA
           is  authorized  to determine  who and what
           programs in that state could qualify people as
           trainers.   In  California [Inaudible]... so we
           really are  not  knowledgeable  about  the
           different types of training programs. So the
           Commissioner of Agriculture should probably
           be   the  best  source  for   information.
               See, our problem is when Ag comes to
           check our crews, if we as employers were not
           progressive and push and push to  get this
           done, then there will be areas that we would
           be out of compliance, granted.  They are all
           very courteous,  extremely helpful.   In  our
           organization we have been fortunate when we
           got these six [Inaudible]... they are happy, but
it's an ongoing situation with crew bosses.  If
you are a  grower you are in the  same
situation.  Say there is a crew coming in. I'm
going to give them training.  We got Steve,
he has a book with  two or three parts.
Unfortunately, in our organization we have
about 60-65 certified  trainers plus  we have
QAL's on staff. We are probably at best 1%
of the agriculture employers that are set up
like this.  There's very few that if they are
progressive  and  stay in compliance we can
give our classes, and we're getting there. But
if the program is put into  effect you really
have to do it well. I believe in improvement.
I believe it is great.  I'm all  for it. I also ran
through a situation with private applicators.
They are authorized  to train these folks.
They don't  have the  slightest idea how to
train them.  Why do I have to send 70 or 80
of my people to a 4-hour class? I'm paying
those people per class.  They give the eight
hours worth of class, I believe that.  I believe
that's what it should be but they don't know
how to train them. But then there's  a private
applicator that is allowed to give this class.
These are the areas that I think are not equal,
not equal at all, and I think it should be on an
even level. Sometimes I run into growers and
they say, "I don't care,  I don't send them." I
think it should be on a more equal basis.
    We have three trainers for safety records.
John is one of them and they are all qualified.
They never stop training.  Field represen-
atives have to be  trained also, but they don't.
Today they have  25 people in their crew and
10 more people will be bringing their crews
tomorrow.  It is very difficult for my three
trainers to handle all this  training.  We've
262  California

done it, but it hasn't been easy. I want to get
more  trainers.  [In  response to  inaudible
question]: Absolutely, by all means, I think
this is one of the problems, the regulation is...
    Let's say that I'm training you folks here
and I don't want to give you the blue card,
but all of you signed. Well, in the agricultural
business, five days later you may be working
for someone else, and you go there and the
guy asks, "Have you been trained?" "Oh yes,
I have been with a whole bunch of crews." I
think it should be that the worker receives at
least a decent  half hour training.   I  know
several people who disagree with me because
they are taking up some liabilities and so on.
I train you and you go to someone else and
you do something wrong, you say, well, you
don't want to train me, you should be going.
If that person has a blue card, that person has
gone through training, whether it be a limited
amount of training or full scale training. John
wants an hour.  I think an hour is too long for
a field training, but if that's what John wants
to do, then that's what I think he should do.
He feels comfortable, so be it.  One of our
directors, he  can  do that  training  in  20
minutes.  At any rate, they have the training
by a certified trainer. Steve has trained many
of our instructors.

    Speaker: [Inaudible]

    Steve: Sometimes you're talking like they
are labor machines.  You bring them  for at
least a half hour prior to work. That's not the
law  but  it  makes  better relations for us.
Sometimes our people have to do training
every day if they have the time. It's not easy,
but it's possible. I don't like to train three full
time  [Inaudible]... it's  possible,  extremely
possible, I think morally not a good feel.
And then these folks that work in the fields
and elsewhere too,  I think we have been
indirectly saving a lo