EPA Decides Not To Pursue Training
At the prodding of ISSA and other industry groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in late May that it will not pursue extensive certification and training for employees (such as custodial personnel) who apply disinfectants, sanitizers and other antimicrobial pesticides as part of their job.
According to the EPA’s Kevin Keaney, the agency decided not to pursue training requirements for occupational users of antimicrobial pesticides largely because it determines, after careful review, that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard thoroughly addressed the EPA’s concerns regarding worker exposure and that any additional training was not necessary.
From the onset, ISSA opposed the EPA’s proposed training requirements because they would be duplicative of existing federal training requirements established by OSHA and would impose unnecessary and unreasonably burdensome costs upon businesses that would provide no measurable safety and health benefit to workers.
Keaney noted, however, that the agency would continue to explore training requirements for specialty applications of antimicrobials such as in HVAC systems and mould and mildew remediation. In addition, the EPA will pursue certification and training requirements for workers who apply non-agricultural, general-use pesticides such as ant and roach, or wasp and hornet sprays.
The EPA initially floated the concept of training for workers who apply antimicrobials in early 2006. The additional training requirements contemplated by the EPA would have required extensive training and certification of all occupational users of disinfectants, sanitizers, and other antimicrobial pesticides. As a consequence, the EPA would have required extensive training for custodial personnel, restaurant workers, and millions of other employees who apply such products as part of their job.
Throughout the process, ISSA has maintained that such additional training as contemplated by the agency is not necessary in light of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. ISSA argued that employees at institutional facilities who apply antimicrobials already receive substantial training and information to ensure their safe use of disinfectants and sanitizers under OSHA regulations.
As a consequence, ISSA argued that any additional training imposed by the EPA would be redundant, unnecessary and overly burdensome to industry and business in general. Ultimately, the EPA concurred with ISSA’s position and agreed to discontinue its pursuit of these additional training requirements, saving industry millions of dollars in unnecessary training.
