GOVERNMENT
EPA Proposes Expanded Rules To Protect Pesticides Workers Regulations would extend present coverage to all handlers of pesticides and stiffen requirements for protective equipment The Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a proposal on new regulations to protect the health of all workers who handle commercial pesticides. The rules would extend existing requirements to cover workers in forests, nurseries, greenhouses, and all other handlers of pesticides. EPA expects the rule, which is not yet ready for formal proposal, to generate some opposition from both farmer and farm worker organizations. The current regulations for handling pesticides only protect workers entering fields after pesticide applications. EPA has believed for some time that these re-entry time rules are not adequate. It actually began to work on the current draft in the fall of 1985. At that time, the agency convened a group of 25 organizations that had an interest in expanding the worker protection rules to try to get a consensus that would eliminate the possibility of future legal problems. This negotiated rulemaking fell apart, however, when the representatives of some farm worker organizations walked out of the negotiations, claiming that the agency was not moving forward in addressing their particular needs. Since that time, early in 1986, EPA has been developing the proposal based on advice from the remaining groups. What has emerged is a much more complicated, more comprehensive effort to keep all pesticide workers 14
January 25, 1988 C&EN
healthy. Re-entry regulations are still an important part of the package. EPA has established re-entry intervals for about 60 pesticide active ingredients and some generic intervals for chemicals not specifically listed. For organophosphate and //-methyl carbamate pesticides having acute dermal toxicity, for instance, a 48-hour interval is proposed. Exceptions to these re-entry times, allowed under the current rules, would be removed. Workers would not be allowed :m the field unless there would be no contact with treated surfaces. A major change in the draft proposal is the setting of minimum personal protective equipment requirements for both re-entry workers and other pesticide handlers. Earl Spurrier, vice president of regulatory affairs at the National Agricultural Chemicals Association,, headed the EPA working group on protective clothing. He says that the personal equipment requirement follows in the path of an effort NACA has been pushing for several years. NACA has obtained measurements showing that 70 to 80% of the pesticide residues picked up by field workers are on their hands, according to Spurrier. By wearing rubber or chemical-resistant gloves, this can be cut to nearly zero, he says. Much of the irritation workers receive from these chemicals comes from touching other parts of their bodies with the hands, such as eyes and mouth, which then have a reaction. The current EPA rule requires just a hat, shirt, and trousers for protection. This has been called inadequate, especially as newer, more toxic pesticides have come into use in the past decade. EPA says gloves are the single best protection for field workers, and is proposing to
require their use for work around all but the lowest-toxicity chemicals. The agency says that new technology has made gloves more comfortable to work in and notes that they can be washed and reused. The draft proposal lists leather gloves, uncoated cloth, and fingerless gloves as unacceptable for handling pesticides. In addition to wearing gloves, pesticide handlers will be required to don other protections as well, depending on the task and degree of toxicity of the chemical. The draft proposal lists wearing a pair of coveralls over regular working clothes to protect the body from contamination for applicators and field workers. The proposal would require pesticide mixers and loaders to wear
New rules would toughen re-entry times after pesticide application
chemical-resistant aprons to reduce exposure from splashes and spills when handling bulk pesticides. Other protective gear proposed includes several types of headgear, face shields when there is the potential for eye injury, and chemical-resistant footwear for higher-toxicity compounds. Another major change in the draft proposal is that if a person becomes c o n t a m i n a t e d , water, soap, and single-use towels must be available for decontamination. The agency plans to propose that the wash water be located near where the workers are, that there be enough for at least hand and face washing, and that it be at a temperature that will not injure a person's eyes. A potentially difficult requirement is that the water also be potable. According to Spurrier, many farms use water that does not meet drinking standards for a variety of purposes, and it may be a burden on farmers to provide drinkable wash water. Other provisions of the proposal will include requirements for training of handlers and mixers of pesticides, making these regulations more extensive than current ones. There is also a provision that would require workers to be tested for low cholinesterase levels if they work with organophosphate compounds for three consecutive days. Chemical manufacturers will be required to redo their pesticide labels with updated warnings and instructions when the changes are made final as well. NACA's Spurrier says this is a time-consuming and expensive process, but EPA does not see it as a major problem. Enforcement will be left up to state agencies responsible for agricultural programs. Once the rules are in force, probably not until some time in 1990, EPA expects farm workers' groups and unions to keep a close watch for violators. Farmers will have to foot the bill for new equipment and facilities and may register the largest number of complaints during the comment period. Overall, however, both EPA and NACA believe that this is a pragmatic proposal that goes a long way toward solving this particular worker health problem. David Hanson, Washington
NIH absolves Montana test of elm tree microbes Seven months after it began, the Gary A. Strobel affair has officially ended. However, the drawing of lessons may only be starting. A National Institutes of Health panel has just concluded that the Montana State University professor of plant pathology did not violate NIH guidelines for recombinant DNA research when he inoculated 14 young elm trees with genetically modified Pseudomonas syringae, a bacterium producing a fungicide that prevents Dutch elm disease. Last summer, a torrent of publicity and criticism greeted revelation that Strobel had made the field test without authorization from regulatory agencies. His confrontational stance particularly drew fire—for example, calling what he did "civil disobedience" to federal regulations that are "almost ludicrous." In response, Strobel drew reprimands from MSU and the Environmental Protection Agency. And in September, wielding a chain saw, he cut down and burned the elm trees (C&EN, Sept. 21,1987, page 25). The NIH panel, led by Ruth L. Kirschstein, director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, had to decide whether to classify StrobeTs bacterium as containing recombinant DNA. NIH guidelines— and sanctions—only cover use of organisms containing recombinant DNA at institutions receiving NIH support for recombinant research. Initially, it was not clear whether the bacterium contained recombinant DNA. The hybrid plasmid Strobel used was made by recombinant technology. However, the bacterium is prepared by transposon mutagenesis—similar to a naturally occurring conjugative process that transfers DNA portions from one cell to another. Upon transfer of the plasmid from Escherichia coli, where it is formed, to P. syringae, the portions of the plasmid that are joined by recombinant techniques are lost: The plasmid can replicate in E. coli but not in P. syringae. Hence, the panel finds, the strain used "did not contain recombinant DNA," and the test was not subject to NIH guidelines. Several observers point out that
the Strobel affair demonstrates the inadequate and confusing nature of current regulation of biotechnology. Thus, the NIH guidelines are confined narrowly to organisms cont a i n i n g r e c o m b i n a n t DNA. But EPA's broad guidelines cover all genetically altered materials, whether formed by conventional or recombinant methods. Hence, StrobeTs field test is covered by EPA's guidelines, and EPA's reprimand stands. Strobel tells C&EN that he knew before doing his elm tree tests that NIH guidelines would not apply, and that his organisms posed no risk. The EPA rules "don't make sense," he says, nor do the guidelines recently adopted by the Department of Agriculture. "I'm not a lawyer. No scientist or business should have to deal with more than one agency." There should be just one set of rules that are clear, he adds. Local biosafety committees should do most of the reviews. And regulators should look at what an organism does, not whether it contains recombinant DNA. He cites a National Academy of Sciences report saying there is nothing intrinsically hazardous about recombinant techniques. Reports that the affair has "virtually destroyed" his career are exaggerated, he says. He is now working on a peptide effective against Dutch elm disease. Some observers describe EPA's reprimand as a "slap on the wrist" that would not deter other scientists from making unauthorized field tests. Strobel denies this: "I went through hell. You can't imagine what this soul went through in the past six months. The press was anxious to write stories, and doesn't understand genetic alterations." He got hundreds of letters and calls of support from around the world. But he expected more support from scientists. "We have a major task on our hands. For the past 10 years, the Jeremy Rifkins of the world have sowed fear" (referring to the severe critic of genetic engineering). "We need to have someone speak on behalf of the technology, not just to let the Rifkins talk." Richard Seltzer, Washington January 25, 1988 C&EN
15
