Worker exposure site selection

Contractors at Sites B, D, G, I, and J had incomplete sampling practices and as a result were not able to evaluate PPE levels based on monitoring data. Eor example, both contractors SSAHPs at Site I lacked provisions for monitoring site hazards such as metals, pesticides, herbicides, and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) that could not be evaluated with a PID. Since worker exposures to the range of hazards on site had not been characterized, PPE was not selected based on its performance relative to the nature and level of site hazards. 

One of the most important aspects of designing a successful worker exposure or re-entry study is the selection of the agricultural site at which to perform the study. One must first define the growing region in which the pesticide is to be used to the widest extent possible. This is important since this region would have the most farms, farmers, commercial applicators, or re-entry workers which would have work habits, equipment, and land, which would best represent the use of the product. 

One of the first items of importance when attempting to select an agricultural site at which to perform a worker exposure/re-entry study is to review the label on the product. Such a review will reveal the areas where the product is to be used and the conditions under which the product is to be applied. One should look for whether a product is to be applied by ground or air and if there are any restrictions as to the locations where the product is to be used. One must also pay attention to label directions concerning types of soil where the product is to be used since this could affect rates of use. 

When planning a worker exposure/re-entry study, the number of sites selected should reflect the use pattern of the product. Usually three different sites, each in a different geographical location, are recommended to ensure good representation of the areas when the product has wide use. The different geographical locations offer the researcher diversity in equipment used to treat the crops as well as diversity in the work habits of the individuals in the study. 

At sites where the identity and concentration of chemicals in air are known, a respirator should be selected with a protection factor that is sufficiently high to ensure that the wearer will not be exposed to the chemicals above the applicable limits. These Umits include OSHA s Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) and are designed to protect most workers who may be exposed to chemicals day after day throughout their working life. The OSHA PELs are legally enforceable exposure limits and are the minimum limits of protection that must be met. 

In trying to balance present and future impacts, we must consider not only the financial burdens but obviously the human health risks as well. We cannot limit our consideration to the risks posed after work is completed. Through several studies, we have become increasingly aware that the largest risks are worker-related, not those incurred by the off-site population. Decisions must therefore balance the requirement to minimize near-term exposures to workers and the requironent to reduce burdens on and protect future generations. In order to adequately assure protection of human health, I believe that remediation and disposal strategies should be selected based on the cumulative risk posed to workers and the public over time. 

The annual radiation exposure of nuclear workers is limited to 5rem, and sites for nuclear operations are selected so that in the event of the maximum credible accident the exposure of the public will be less than 25 rem. The levels of radiation exposure were first established on the basis of historical data, and since then they have been periodically evaluated by the International Commission on the basis of continuing experience. 

---