From ???@??? Tue Jul 08 11:18:56 1997 From: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us (Rafael Paonessa) To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu, wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Minors and WPS Date: 02 Jul 97 13:45:36 MDT Content-Length: 992 Lines: 20 I don't think there's anything in WPS that addresses the age of handlers or workers, but the child labor laws that the US Department of Labor enforces certainly do. Certain hazardous agricultural activities (pesticide handling included) are prohibited to minors depending on their age. For example, they limit the tractor size (in horsepower) that a teenager can operate, etc. So if I were this guy, I would call the nearest DOL office. I have had questions here in Texas about the validity of a minor's signature on the WPS Training Verification Card, since for most purposes a minor's signature must be validated by that of a parent/guardian, but I have yet to hear an official answer to this. I can't remember if this question was posed to the WPS interpretive guidance group. Anyone care to respond? _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 From ???@??? Thu Jul 24 10:14:59 1997 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:35:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen R Sutter To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: child applicators Content-Length: 721 Lines: 13 -- I'm confident a DOL officer will tell us that minors under 16 may not be employed in occupations that involve handling or applying agricultural chemicals classified under FIFRA as Category I of toxicity, identified by the word "poison," and the "skull and crossbones" on the label; or Category II of toxicity, identified by the word "warning" on the label. The agency's definition of "handling" includes cleaning or decontaminating equipment, disposal or return of empty containers, or serving as a flagman for aircraft applying agricultural chemicals. Steve Sutter, UC Area Personnel Management Farm Advisor 1720 S. Maple Ave., Fresno, CA 93702 (209) 456-7560, FAX (209) 456-7575 http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/ From ???@??? Tue Jul 08 11:19:15 1997 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:19:44 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Dean Herzfeld Subject: Re: Minors and WPS Content-Length: 2795 Lines: 67 RE: Minors and WPS The federal child labor laws may apply. A number of years ago we had an issue with kids hiring out to ride bean bars. (A tractor pulled piece of equipment with a cross bar holding a number of seats - each with a single nozzle spray gun - used to spray Roundup or other herbicides on large escaped weeds in soybean fields). Federal ag child labor laws prohibits non-family member youths from doing anything with warning and danger signal word pesticides until they are 16: Handling or applying (including cleaning or decontaminating equipment, disposal or return of empty containers, or serving as a flagman for aircraft applying) agricultural chemicals classified under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135 et seq.) as Category I of toxicity, identified by the word 'poison' and the 'skull and crossbones' on the label; or Category II of toxicity, identified by the word 'warning' on the label; (Child labor laws at: http://www.bae.umn.edu/~fs/; click on index's Regulatory Information) Roundup at the time had a warning signal word due to eye irritation of one of the inerts. We first found out about this because the restriction was listed along with the federal tractor driving safety, training, and age requirements for youths. Monsanto became aware of the issue. They helped out in a number of farm family bean bar safety training programs by the extension service and started to find ways to make Roundup a caution signal word product. You need to check with your state's child labor laws. Minnesota state child labor law prohibits non-family member pesticide applications for persons under 18. It turns out MN state law also expressly allows federal child labor laws to supercede state law for child labor ONLY in the agriculture sector (even though the feds are less restrictive). Federal and MN state law has no lower age limits and no special restrictions on children applying pesticides on their own family's farm. Dean Herzfeld University of Minnesota >wps-forum-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 12 >Is anyone aware of any part of WPS that discusses age and its relevance >to applicability of standard? I have a nursery owner who wants to train >13 to 15 year olds to be handlers. They would be using Roundup. Any >advice would be appreciated. > >Annie Reid >Agrichemical Toxicologist >Vermont Dept. of Agriculture >Montpelier, VT > ............................................................ Dean Herzfeld, Coordinator: Health, Environmental, and Pesticide Safety Programs University of Minnesota Extension Service direct telephone: (612) 624-3477 office telephone: (612) 625-6290 FAX: (612) 625-9728 e-mail: deanh@puccini.crl.umn.edu -- From ???@??? Tue Jul 08 11:19:29 1997 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 15:03:32 -0700 From: Roy Rutz To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Hand Labor Tasks Content-Length: 1197 Lines: 31 Situation A pesticide was applied as a band treatment to the top of the bed. There is an REI in effect. The plants are in the seedling stage. Workers are walking on the untreated area hoeing weeds in the treated area. They do not touch the plants or the treated soil areas. Question Is this a prohibited hand labor task? Discussion At first glance the answer seems to be a plain and simple yes. However, the definition of hand labor has three elements: 1. An agricultural activity 2. conducted by hand or with hand tools 3. The worker has substantial contact with (contaminated) surfaces. While the subject task certainly meets the first two elements, I have some trouble arguing that there is, in fact, substantial contact with contaminated surfaces. Substantial means more than a little. I recognize that weeding is included in the list of generally probibited hand labor tasks. Although it hasn't come up yet, there could be an argument that the definition of limited exposure (minimal and only to forearms/lower legs) is met in this senario thereby allowing 8 hours of work rather than 1 hour. Am I missing something? OK Forum members, you're on. Roy Rutz rrutz@cdpr.ca.gov From ???@??? Thu Jul 24 10:15:01 1997 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:32:02 -0700 From: Roy Rutz To: annie@agr.state.vt.us, WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: 4 day REI? -Reply Content-Length: 382 Lines: 6 It's not as simple as knowing the basic default REIs. If there were longer REIs in place already they had to be maintained. Different REIs can be established based on data. If PR Notices 93-7 and 11 are reviewed there are also some special situations addressed. I am not sure just what is the reason for the non-default REI on Captan but it may be for one of the above reasons. From ???@??? Thu Jul 24 10:15:00 1997 From: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us (Rafael Paonessa) To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu, wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: 4 day REI? Date: 24 Jul 97 11:08:16 MDT Content-Length: 623 Lines: 18 You're thinking of the interim REIs set under the WPS. A pesticide can have a much longer REI either set by EPA or the states. Parathion has a 7-day REI in Texas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought REIs ranged from 4-72 hours and yesterday saw on a label for captan a 4 day REI. Four days = 96 hours when I do my math. Am I missing something here??? Annie Reid Agrichemical Toxicologist Vermont Dept. of Agriculture Montpelier, VT _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 From ???@??? Thu Jul 24 10:15:01 1997 From: kay_harris@ncdamail.agr.state.nc.us Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 12:35:05 -0500 To: Subject: Re: 4 day REI? Content-Length: 1437 Lines: 40 Supplement Three-A Addendum to main labeling guidance for the WPS addresses the captan REI of 4 days. It seems that EPA permited the adoption of an interim restrictions on entry to the treated area which may read like the following: " Do not enter or allow worker entry into the treated areas during the restricted interval of 4 days. Exception: For the last 48 hours of the REI, workers may enter the treated area to perform hand labor or other tasks involving contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, without time limit, if they wear the early entry personal protective equipment listed below." In essence, EPA allowed or authorized registrants with captan as an active,to incorporate this language to insure uninterrupted production of crops requiring frequent hand labor activity. Kay Harris WPS Specialist NC Dept.of Agriculture ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: 4 day REI? Author: at NCDAMAIL Date: 7/24/97 8:09 AM I thought REIs ranged from 4-72 hours and yesterday saw on a label for captan a 4 day REI. Four days = 96 hours when I do my math. Am I missing something here??? Annie Reid Agrichemical Toxicologist Vermont Dept. of Agriculture Montpelier, VT From ???@??? Thu Jul 24 19:07:07 1997 From: RDSHS@aol.com Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:48:49 -0400 (EDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: 4 day REI? -Reply Content-Length: 460 Lines: 7 I'm confused! You reference "Parathion has a 7-day REI in Texas." If my memory serves me correctly, the registration of all Ethyl Parathion labels aka "Parathion" was cancelled (banned) in 1990 if I am not mistaken. The cancellation provided for a two (2) year phase out of "stocks in the channels of trade" meaning no product should have been used in the 1992 growing season. Are you referencing Ethyl Parathion? And, if so why are Texans still using it? From ???@??? Fri Jul 25 09:27:43 1997 From: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us (Rafael Paonessa) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu, wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: 4 day REI? -Reply Date: 25 Jul 97 08:34:08 MDT Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 24 Parathion was NOT banned; its use on several crops was cancelled. It is still registered for use on several crops including wheat, sunflowers and others. It is used all over the country. Its use on vegetables was the main concern because of heavy hand labor and the resulting exposure problem. I think that was the reason for the cancellation of those uses. I made a mistake when I said it was a Texas-specific REI; it is not. The 7-day REI is EPA's. For a moment I thought it was specific to Texas because it is cited in the Texas Pesticide Law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm confused! You reference "Parathion has a 7-day REI in Texas." If my memory serves me correctly, the registration of all Ethyl Parathion labels aka "Parathion" was cancelled (banned) in 1990 if I am not mistaken. The cancellation provided for a two (2) year phase out of "stocks in the channels of trade" meaning no product should have been used in the 1992 growing season. Are you referencing Ethyl Parathion? And, if so why are Texans still using it? _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 From ???@??? Fri Jul 25 11:27:26 1997 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:57:03 -0500 To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Mart VanKirk Subject: handlers as crop advisors Content-Length: 223 Lines: 4 Is it legal for an employee of the establishment trained as a WPS handler but not a certified crop advisor nor supervised by a certified crop advisor to enter the treated area during the REI to perform crop advisor tasks? From ???@??? Fri Jul 25 13:46:56 1997 From: Rudolph.Kay@epamail.epa.gov Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:31:03 -0700 Subject: Re: handlers as crop advisors To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Content-Length: 1836 Lines: 50 The Worker Protection Standard defines pesticide handler to include "Performing tasks as a crop advisor during any restricted-entry interval." Therefore, a pesticide handler who has received the WPS pesticide safety training for handlers would be allowed to enter the treated area during the REI to perform crop advisor tasks (wearing the required protective equipment, of course). In 1995, EPA revised the WPS to exempt qualified crop advisors from some requirements of the WPS, and to also exempt persons from certain of the WPS requirements while performing crop advising tasks under the direct supervision of a certified or licensed crop advisor. If the person performing crop advising tasks does not meet the WPS criteria for crop advisor exemption, then the person would be allowed into the area under restricted-entry interval only if all required WPS protections were provided (the same protections required for any other handlers working in an area under restricted-entry interval). Kay Rudolph US EPA Region 9 415-744-1065 (Embedded image moved wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU to file: 07/25/97 11:04 AM PIC09022.PCX) To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu cc: (bcc: Kay Rudolph) Subject: handlers as crop advisors Is it legal for an employee of the establishment trained as a WPS handler but not a certified crop advisor nor supervised by a certified crop advisor to enter the treated area during the REI to perform crop advisor tasks? Attachment converted: howpow:PIC09022.PCX (????/----) (0001CE1B) From ???@??? Tue Jul 08 11:18:54 1997 From: "Anne M. Reid" To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Minors and WPS Date: Wed Jul 2 14:14:25 1997 Content-Length: 325 Lines: 9 Is anyone aware of any part of WPS that discusses age and its relevance to applicability of standard? I have a nursery owner who wants to train 13 to 15 year olds to be handlers. They would be using Roundup. Any advice would be appreciated. Annie Reid Agrichemical Toxicologist Vermont Dept. of Agriculture Montpelier, VT From ???@??? Thu Jul 24 10:14:58 1997 From: "Anne M. Reid" To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: 4 day REI? Date: Thu Jul 24 11:10:55 1997 Content-Length: 244 Lines: 8 I thought REIs ranged from 4-72 hours and yesterday saw on a label for captan a 4 day REI. Four days = 96 hours when I do my math. Am I missing something here??? Annie Reid Agrichemical Toxicologist Vermont Dept. of Agriculture Montpelier, VT