From ???@??? Mon Mar 02 11:44:28 1998 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:17:36 +0000 From: Steve Sutter To: Cc: ag-hrnet@UCDAVIS.EDU Subject: fieldworker train-the-trainer class Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980302121736.00689ec0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 545 Lines: 12 Worker Protection Standard Fieldworker Train-the-Trainer Workshop ... The next (4-hour) workshop for trainers of fieldworkers offered by the UC Agricultural Personnel Management Program in English is April 3, 1998, in Fresno. There is no fee for the workshop. All workshops are filled on a first-come, first-served basis. For information, call Steve Sutter or Yolanda Murillo on (209) 456-7285. Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor 1720 S. Maple Ave., Fresno, CA 93702 (209) 456-7560 Fax (209) 456-7575 http://are.Berkeley.EDU/APMP/ From ???@??? Wed Mar 04 09:49:45 1998 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 17:24:30 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Gregorio Billikopf-Encina Subject: Fieldworker WPS Train-the-trainer Content-Length: 1015 Lines: 35 Workshop: WPS Train-the-trainer of Field Workers March 26, 1998 Pre-register with Doug Mattes, 468-3300 Senior Ag Biologist Ag Commissioner's Office (Team taught by: Gregorio Billikopf & Jesus Valencia, Farm Advisors) Approximately 6 hours. ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone / tel‚fono: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 E-mail / correo electr¢nico: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Agricultural Labor Management (Northern San Joaqu¡n APMP home page): http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/7grisha.htm (English) http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/7grego.htm (espa¤ol) Agricultural Personnel Management Program (APMP) home page: http://are.Berkeley.edu/APMP *** Research & Education in Agricultural Labor Management *** Administraci¢n Laboral Agr¡cola: Investigaci¢n y Educaci¢n ******************************************** From ???@??? Wed Mar 04 09:49:59 1998 Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:15:12 -0600 From: christina_campos@fmc.com (CHRISTINA CAMPOS) Subject: Pesticide Handler Training To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Content-Length: 262 Lines: 4 We have 2 pesticide handlers in Arizona. I know that in California, pesticide safety training is required yearly. Is the requirement the same for Arizona or is training only required every 5 years as stated under the Federal WPS? Help! From ???@??? Thu Mar 05 14:20:32 1998 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:36:45 -0600 From: christina_campos@fmc.com (CHRISTINA CAMPOS) Subject: Florida Train the Trainer Course To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Content-Length: 284 Lines: 6 Does anyone know how to go about getting certified in Florida to train pesticide handlers?? Is there such a thing as a Train-the-Trainer course in Florida? If there, is who can I contact for more information? Thanks in advance for your responses! From ???@??? Mon Mar 09 09:56:16 1998 From: HORTON.JANE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 06:48:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Florida Train the Trainer Course To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Content-Length: 1687 Lines: 42 Yes - Florida does have train-the-trainer courses. Contact Dr. Mari Stavanja Fl Dept. of Ag & Consumer Services at 850/921-4827 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Florida Train the Trainer Course Author: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU at IN Date: 3/5/98 7:30 PM From wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Envelope-From: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU Received: from are.Berkeley.EDU by epamail.epa.gov (PMDF V5.1-8 #22480) with ESMTP id <0EPD8V5AO00KM5@epamail.epa.gov>; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17031; Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:58:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:58:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:36:45 -0600 Resent-from: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: christina_campos@fmc.com (CHRISTINA CAMPOS) Subject: Florida Train the Trainer Course Resent-sender: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Resent-message-id: <"KRB31B.A.EAE.s7x_0"@are.Berkeley.EDU> Message-id: <199803052153.AA02122@igw.fmc.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-description: cc:Mail note part Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/145 X-Loop: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Does anyone know how to go about getting certified in Florida to train pesticide handlers?? Is there such a thing as a Train-the-Trainer course in Florida? If there, is who can I contact for more information? Thanks in advance for your responses! From ???@??? Mon Mar 09 09:56:33 1998 Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 11:10:07 -0500 From: Mari Stavanja To: HORTON.JANE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re: Florida Train the Trainer Course Content-Length: 2174 Lines: 52 Yes, I do Worker Protection Standards "train-the-trainer" (WPSTTT) in Florida upon request. In addition, who is interested in participating in the WPSTTT could also request the WPS train-the-trainer schedule 1998, at the nearest County Extension Office. I have been in and out the office due to multiple activities but I will be back on March 12. If you have any questions, please call me at 850-921-4827. HORTON.JANE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV wrote: > > > Yes - Florida does have train-the-trainer courses. Contact > Dr. Mari Stavanja Fl Dept. of Ag & Consumer Services > at 850/921-4827 > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Florida Train the Trainer Course > Author: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU at IN > Date: 3/5/98 7:30 PM > > From wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU > X-Envelope-From: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU > Received: from are.Berkeley.EDU by epamail.epa.gov (PMDF V5.1-8 #22480) > with ESMTP id <0EPD8V5AO00KM5@epamail.epa.gov>; Thu, > 5 Mar 1998 16:54:50 -0500 (EST) > Received: (from slist@localhost) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.7/8.8.7) > id NAA17031; Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:58:56 -0800 (PST) > Resent-date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:58:56 -0800 (PST) > Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:36:45 -0600 > Resent-from: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU > From: christina_campos@fmc.com (CHRISTINA CAMPOS) > Subject: Florida Train the Trainer Course > Resent-sender: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU > To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU > Resent-message-id: <"KRB31B.A.EAE.s7x_0"@are.Berkeley.EDU> > Message-id: <199803052153.AA02122@igw.fmc.com> > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-description: cc:Mail note part > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Precedence: list > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/145 > X-Loop: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU > > Does anyone know how to go about getting certified in Florida to train > pesticide handlers?? Is there such a thing as a Train-the-Trainer > course in Florida? If there, is who can I contact for more > information? > > Thanks in advance for your responses! From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 09:55:40 1998 From: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us (Rafael Paonessa) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Specifications for Enclosed Cab Date: 12 Mar 98 09:58:42 CST Content-Length: 619 Lines: 16 Anne McMillan wrote: > Where would I find the specifications for the engineering of a > WPS-compliant enclosed cab? Last I heard, EPA was letting states adopt California's enclosed cab standards or develop their own. Guess which one is easier. I tried to contact some people at ASAE (the society of agricultural engineers), who supposedly are working on a standard, but I never got a response. Anyone out there know anything about this? _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 09:55:40 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:13:34 -0800 From: Mike Roozen To: Rafael Paonessa Subject: Re: Specifications for Enclosed Cab Content-Length: 992 Lines: 24 Rafael Paonessa wrote: > > Anne McMillan wrote: > > > Where would I find the specifications for the engineering of a > > WPS-compliant enclosed cab? > > Last I heard, EPA was letting states adopt California's enclosed cab > standards or develop their own. Guess which one is easier. > > I tried to contact some people at ASAE (the society of agricultural > engineers), who supposedly are working on a standard, but I never > got a response. Anyone out there know anything about this? > _______________________________________________ > Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) > Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides > tel: 512/463-1102 > fax: 512/475-1618 I believe that a company called Nelson Spray Cab has a unit that satisfies the State of Washington L & I standards. You may be able to call Phil Hull at the Washington Growers League for information in this area. He is the most knowledgeable person I know in this area. Telephone 509-575-6315 email wgl@televar.com Mike From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 13:22:31 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:22:48 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: becovitzj@isco.purdue.edu (Joe Becovitz) Subject: Homeowner use products for WPS uses Content-Length: 705 Lines: 18 I know this question has surfaced before, but it continues to be a concern in Indiana. If the owner of a greenhouse or nursery uses homeowner products off the shelf of their retail operation to make pesticide applications, is there a violation? But before you answer consider the following: 1. As far as I know, EPA is still working on an answer to the greenhouse as a site question. 2. Some homeowner products contain a statement such as, "For homeowner use only." Is this enforceable? 3. If indeed greenhouse and nusery owners may use homeowner products in their businesses, then every greenhouse and nusery operator in Indiana has found a way around WPS. Thanks, Joe Becovitz From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 09:55:40 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:35:05 -0800 From: Roy Rutz To: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Specifications for Enclosed Cab -Reply Content-Length: 1076 Lines: 18 The American Society of Agricultural Engineers has indeed adopted a standard for enclosed cabs. The standard has been recognized by the U.S. EPA as meeting WPS requirements. It is S-525 and has two parts. Part 1 covers basic cab design and part 2 covers filtered air cabs suitable for respiratory protection. Part 2 was adopted last October or November and is just now being printed. Mr. Barry Smith with John Deere was one of the leaders in this effort. California has a (short) list of enclosed cabs suitable for respiratory protection that it has approved. The staff recommended long range plan is to reference the ASAE standard and get out of the cab approval business. The regulation change to acomplish this is being developed but has not yet been approved by the director for public notice. If anyone wants more detail or a list of the California approved cabs please contact me via e-mail or by phone at (916) 445-4279 or Dennis Gibbons at (916) 445-4270. For information on the ASAE standard please contact them. Sorry, I don't have the number handy. royr From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 09:55:40 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:39:44 -0800 From: "A. R. MarvinGallo" To: annie@agr.state.vt.us Subject: Specifications for Enclosed Cab -Reply Content-Length: 401 Lines: 20 I can send you correspondence regarding enforcement of the enclosed cab requirement and inspection criteria issued by the Enforcement Branch of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. I can also refer you to the Worker Safety Branch, ask for : Mr. Dennis Gibbons or Mr. Roy Rutz. 916.445.4222 Adolfo R. MarvinGallo Department of Pesticide Regulation 916.445.3895 mgallo@cdpr.ca.gov From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 11:07:34 1998 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:22:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re[2]: Specifications for Enclosed Cab To: mroozen@sos.net, rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us Content-Length: 3411 Lines: 87 The ASAE has published a Standard, S525, concerning performance standards for an enclosed tractor cab. The standard recognizes two types of cabs. One type is termed an "ECPAD"; this means "enclosed cab, pesticide application, dermal protection". The ECPAD type of cab will offer ONLY dermal protection. In order to comply with WPS, operators of a ECPAD would need to wear the label-specified respirator; the personal protective equipment requirements of the handler/operator would be long sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks. See 40 CFR 170.240 (d)(5) (i). Also note that WPS requires that the operator of the enclosed cab carry label specified personal protective equipment in the event that an exit is necessary within a treated area (see 40 CFR 170.240 (d) (5) (iv). The second type of cab is termed an "ECPAR" in the S525. "ECPAR" is the abbreviation used in the S525 for "enclosed cab, pesticide application, respiratory protection." An ECPAR cab will provide respiratory protection equivalent to an organic vapor-removing cartridge respirator. This will satisfy the label specification of TC-21C and TC-23C respirators. (see 40 CFR 170.240 (d) (5) (iii); the handler would wear long sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks. The label-specified PPE would need to be stored away from contamination and available should the operator need to exit the cab in a treated area. At the present time, there are three cabs on the California list of certified cabs which provide both dermal and respiratory protection for operators. The cab manufacturers and telephone numbers are provided below: Nelson Spray Cab/Yuba City CA 916-673-0919 Lift-Top Cabs/Model C & D/ 509-457-4150 Pureair Model 8000 Cab/ 509-665-0930 The Agency is working with the agricultural cab industry and ASAE to provide additional information and guidance about enclosed cabs and the Standard. In the mean time, I hope that the above information will prove helpful. Judy Smith EPA/Worker Protection 703-305-5621 Rafael Paonessa wrote: > > Anne McMillan wrote: > > > Where would I find the specifications for the engineering of a > > WPS-compliant enclosed cab? > > Last I heard, EPA was letting states adopt California's enclosed cab > standards or develop their own. Guess which one is easier. > > I tried to contact some people at ASAE (the society of agricultural > engineers), who supposedly are working on a standard, but I never > got a response. Anyone out there know anything about this? > _______________________________________________ > Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) > Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides > tel: 512/463-1102 > fax: 512/475-1618 I believe that a company called Nelson Spray Cab has a unit that satisfies the State of Washington L & I standards. You may be able to call Phil Hull at the Washington Growers League for information in this area. He is the most knowledgeable person I know in this area. Telephone 509-575-6315 email wgl@televar.com Mike From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 12:17:28 1998 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:46:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: ASAE Contact Information To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Content-Length: 337 Lines: 15 You may contact the American Society of Agricultural Engineers to purchase a copy of the ASAE S525 (Enclosed Cab Standard) at: 2950 Niles Rd. St. Joseph MI 49085-9659 voice: 616-429-0300 fax: 616-429-3852 email: hq@asae.org Judy Smith EPA 703-305-5621 From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 13:51:38 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:33:35 -0500 From: "H. Grier Stayton" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, becovitzj@isco.purdue.edu Subject: Homeowner use products for WPS uses -Reply Content-Length: 393 Lines: 8 The Interpretive Guidance 14.16 mentions retail establishments and non-WPS labeling use . . . but they state it would only occur in rare instances. My humble opinion would be that the use of "Home owner use only" would be worthy of an enforcement action in the case of commercial greenhouse use. Also any product not labeled for use in a commercial greenhouse should be subject to action. From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 16:25:55 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:50:36 -0500 From: Tim Creger To: WPS Forum Subject: Enforcement of homeowner use products in greenhouses Content-Length: 1713 Lines: 31 Regarding Joe Becovitz's question on homeowner use products used in commercial greenhouses: Region 7 EPA states (IA, MO, KS, NE) have been pressing this issue with SFIREG and EPA for at least two years now. I think my counterpart, Paul Andre of the Missouri Dept. of Ag., will agree that enforcement of this type of use could be done by a state with an agressive enforcement posture and a state statute to back it up. One of the tough questions attorneys like to ask, however, is whether or not "for homeowner use only" is specifically prohibitive of another class of user. I take for instance the numerous structural pest control products with he label "for commercial use only" or similar language. Depending on who you ask, that language, if it doesn't expressly declare the pesticide as a restricted use pesticide, is not enforceable on a homeowner or business who might sell or use it for home use - UNLESS the state statute prohibits it. Locally, it hasn't been a big issue, since we have few greenhouses that want to spend the extra money on homeowner use products (It quickly becomes cost prohibitive). It has been our belief, and this has been supported by our greenhouse industry, that two of the biggest reasons a greenhouse operator would chose to use a homeowner product is to 1) circumvent the WPS requirements, or 2) use a product they couldn't find otherwise with a commercial label. Our bigger problem here has been use of agricultural labels in greenhouses - because while they have WPS language, it doesn't address the airspace ventilation criteria a greenhouse product would have. I'd like to hear from EPA OECA people on their take on this subject. Tim Creger Nebraska Dept. of Ag. From ???@??? Fri Mar 13 09:27:59 1998 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:55:58 -0500 From: Maine Department of Agriculture To: Joe Becovitz Subject: Re: Homeowner use products for WPS uses Content-Length: 1118 Lines: 32 Joe Becovitz wrote: > > I know this question has surfaced before, but it continues to be a concern > in Indiana. If the owner of a greenhouse or nursery uses homeowner products > off the shelf of their retail operation to make pesticide applications, is > there a violation? But before you answer consider the following: > > 1. As far as I know, EPA is still working on an answer to the > greenhouse as a site question. > > 2. Some homeowner products contain a statement such as, "For homeowner > use only." Is this enforceable? > > 3. If indeed greenhouse and nusery owners may use homeowner products in > their businesses, then every greenhouse and nusery operator in Indiana has > found a way around WPS. > > Thanks, > > Joe Becovitz The easiest answer to this one is to establish a policy in your state that says, "Only products labeled for greenhouse use may be used in greenhouses". -- Gary Fish Maine Board of Pesticides Control 28 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0028 Tel:207-287-7545 Fax:207-287-7548 E-Mail gary.fish@state.me.us http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/bpcpage.htm From ???@??? Fri Mar 13 09:27:59 1998 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:43:22 -0500 From: Craig Regelbrugge Subject: Homeowner use products for WPS uses To: "INTERNET:wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" Content-Length: 2255 Lines: 40 I'll leave the "official" answer to your question to those who are in positions of authority... Having said that, EPA created a very confusing compliance situation when the Interpretive Guidance Workgroup issued its decision #14.16, relative to wps coverage in retail establishments. While the rule itself states that "pesticide uses involved in the production of agricultural plants on a farm, forest, nursery, or greenhouse are covered by the WPS," the IWG decided that maintenance of plants held for retail sale is not distinct from production. We only wish that IRS and others held the same view...the delineation between production and retail is quite clear in Standard Industrial Classification codes, for tax purposes, other regulatory compliance, etc. EPA's IWG went on to say "EPA expects that when treatment in [retail] establishments does occur, it will commonly involve pesticides that are unlikely to bear WPS labeling." In other words, off-the-shelf products. So, yes, the Agency has set up a situation where garden centers may avoid WPS compliance by choosing off-the-shelf products that don't bear the ag. use requirements labeling. There is still an unanswered question relative to such uses within non-production greenhouse structures. If EPA policy is clarified such that a label must state "greenhouse" in order to be used in a greenhouse, retail (non-production) greenhouses might be left with no choice but to comply with what's supposed to be an agricultural standard...because no "homeowner" product, regardless of safety, will be relabeled for greenhouses. Your concern that production nurseries and greenhouses have an "out" is not really a problem. The trend in labels has been for "consumer" labels to specifically state "not for use in commercial nurseries..." As a practical matter, the formulations and packaging that are targeted toward homeowners effectively preclude all but the tiniest production operations from even being tempted... On the retail issue, the most logical solution would be to re-clarify that the scope of WPS is limited to operations engaged in the PRODUCTION of agricultural plants...not to retail or distribution sites. Craig Regelbrugge American Nursery & Landscape Association From ???@??? Thu Mar 19 10:16:51 1998 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:49:07 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Gregorio Billikopf-Encina Subject: Spanish WPS Train-the-trainer Content-Length: 1392 Lines: 41 Here is probably one of the last chances this spring to send your Spanish-speaking foreman or FLCs to a train-the-trainer session for trainers of field workers on WPS. Date: March 26, 1998 Registration: 8 AM (registration, bring a check for $10--made out to ECQA, which includes lunch, donuts, and UC certificate from UC Davis IPM, call Doug Mattes, Senior Ag Biologist at the SJ County Ag Commissioners office, to reserve your spaces at 468-3300). Workshop starts at 8:30 AM and goes to about 2:30 PM, and will be conducted entirely in Spanish. Presenters: Gregorio Billikopf and Jesus Valencia, Farm Advisors ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone / tel‚fono: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 E-mail / correo electr¢nico: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Agricultural Labor Management (Northern San Joaqu¡n APMP home page): http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/7grisha.htm (English) http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/7grego.htm (espa¤ol) Agricultural Personnel Management Program (APMP) home page: http://are.Berkeley.edu/APMP *** Research & Education in Agricultural Labor Management *** Administraci¢n Laboral Agr¡cola: Investigaci¢n y Educaci¢n ******************************************** From ???@??? Fri Mar 20 13:47:22 1998 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:08:16 -0600 From: christina_campos@fmc.com (CHRISTINA CAMPOS) Subject: Applicator License Requirements for FL and TX To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Content-Length: 835 Lines: 19 I several questions regarding Pesticide Applicator licenses for Florida and Texas? 1) Who needs to hold a Pesticide Applicator License in Texas and Florida? Does the person actually applying or handling pesticides need to be licensed or can they apply or handle as long as they work under the supervision of someone who holds a license? Where can I get information regarding Pesticide Applicator Licenses? (for Fl, for TX?) 2) Do you need to hold an applicator license or other type of license in order to be qualified to train pesticide handlers (every 5 years) under WPS (in Florida and Texas)? Or can one just attend a Train-the-Trainer in order to officially qualify as a trainer? Thanks in advance for your responses! From ???@??? Mon Mar 23 10:02:45 1998 From: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us (Rafael Paonessa) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Applicator License Requirements for FL and TX Date: 23 Mar 98 08:20:49 CST Content-Length: 1587 Lines: 35 Christina Campos asked: > 1) Who needs to hold a Pesticide Applicator License in Texas and > Florida? Does the person actually applying or handling pesticides > need to be licensed or can they apply or handle as long as they work > under the supervision of someone who holds a license? > > Where can I get information regarding Pesticide Applicator Licenses? > (for Fl, for TX?) In Texas you can apply restricted-use and state-limited-use pesticides without a license if working under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. If you e-mail me your address I can mail you a basic info packet on how to license in Texas. > > 2) Do you need to hold an applicator license or other type of license > in order to be qualified to train pesticide handlers (every 5 years) > under WPS (in Florida and Texas)? Or can one just attend a > Train-the-Trainer in order to officially qualify as a trainer? > In Texas you have three choices: 1. Hold a pesticide applicator license of any kind; 2. Attend a WPS train-the-trainer course approved by EPA; or 3. Be trained as a handler under WPS and hold a green handler card. NOTE: This last option allows you to train workers only and issue the blue worker card only. There are different train-the-trainer courses out there and some only qualify you to train workers and not handlers. _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 From ???@??? Tue Mar 24 15:58:19 1998 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:20:51 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Gregorio Billikopf-Encina Subject: Ag Labor Mgmt. Forum Content-Length: 1158 Lines: 34 Dear WPS forum subscribers: Any of you who may be interested in joining the AG-HRnet (or Agricultural Human Resource Management network) can do so by going to "AG-HRnet" under: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/7grisha.htm and filling out the form. If you do not have access to the Web, let me know and we will provide you additional information on how to join. Best wishes, Gregorio ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone / tel‚fono: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 E-mail / correo electr¢nico: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Agricultural Labor Management (Northern San Joaqu¡n APMP home page): http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/7grisha.htm (English) http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/7grego.htm (espa¤ol) Agricultural Personnel Management Program (APMP) home page: http://are.Berkeley.edu/APMP *** Research & Education in Agricultural Labor Management *** Administraci¢n Laboral Agr¡cola: Investigaci¢n y Educaci¢n ******************************************** From ???@??? Mon Mar 30 13:48:05 1998 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:25:23 -0800 From: Clairen Davenport To: " Subject: Re: Fw: WPS is a joke! Content-Length: 4156 Lines: 87 Please unsubscribe clairend@lightspeed.net. Thanks Marc Donovan wrote: > >Phil Hull wrote: > >Dear Mr. Crosby, > >While it is true that there are specific requirements for field posting, > >for most pesticide applications the growers may choose to notify his >or > her workers orally instead of by using a sign. "Unless the >pesticide > labeling requires both types of notification, notify workers >EITHER orally > OR by the posting of warning signs at entrances to >treated areas." (HTC, > >page 41) The absence of a sign does not >mean the absence of notification. > There are not that many >pesticides remaining that require both types of > notification. > > Crosby is referring to "central location" posting, which is required for > every WPS labeled pesticide. This has been a major source of confusion (as > we can see from your comments). Most growers do not comply with this > central posting requirement. The reason is because it is very time > consuming and expensive, and because the law itself is not enforced. > > >our comments imply that the vast majority of growers in this country >care > nothing for their workers, are abusive employers, are routinely >poisoning > workers in the fields and furthermore are systematically >poisoning > consumers. > > It appears to me, he is only referring to Florida growers. > > >While you are free to hold this view, your comments are extremist >and > based on your own assumptions, not fact. > > He says that he has seen this with his own eyes. I can vouch for the > validity of his statements, since I have seen the same thing. > > >The growers I represent in the state of Washington are working very >hard > to comply with WPS, OSHA, FMLA, ADA, MSPA, FIFRA, >IIRCA, WARN, COBRA, NLRA, > IRS, INS, SSA, DOL, DOJ, EPA, >and grow the safest, tastiest, cheapest and > most abundant food in >the world. > > I would venture a guess, based on your previous comments, that you have not > seen very many "Central Location" postings in your state either. > > I am usually the first kid on the block to protest new government > regulations, but the fact is - Congress passed the law and it should be > enforced. The ironic part is there are many growers who are complying 100%, > and their bottom line is much lower than those who are thumbing their nose > at the law. > > >The WPS Forum is a regulatory forum, not a social, political or >religious > forum. > > I think Crosby is saying that enforcement is lacking. That seems on-topic > to me. > > IMHO, the EPA and Congress owes it to the workers to take the enforcement > authority away from the State Departments of Agriculture. They are too cozy > with the violators. They are often good-ole-boy networks and their noble > mission is to help the growers. This is in conflict with their role as law > enforcement agencies. > > >Crosby wrote: > >The statement that "For the most part, both EPA and states have entered a > >full compliance/enforcement mode for WPS" is the most increible comment I > >have ever heard. It might interest you to know that in the state of > Florida > >over half of the growers don't give a hoot about WPS. I travel the state > >regularly and know for a fact that large numbers of producers don't even > >bother to post a central location much less post a field. As you know a > >Standard Reentry Posting has some very specific requirments. Of those that > >do post, maybe 1 in 25 even come close to meeting the law. And what > happens > >if a worker wants to see the central location to see if he/she can enter a > >field, and complains for lack of the required information? They are fired. > >They are trouble makers. Consequently no one complains and everybody is > >happy. Would it suprise you to know that there has not been a single WPS > >fine in the state of Florida to this day? I guess that means that we are > >all complying? No enforcement means no conquences, and no conquences means > >no compliance. It is likely to take some loss of life or great harm done > to > >consumers before the law that was supposed to protect both the workers and > >the public is taken seriously. > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Mar 30 13:48:17 1998 From: Craig Harris To: "'wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu'" Subject: mislabeling Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 14:10:26 -0500 Content-Length: 1402 Lines: 45 thought this might be of interest to wps people cheers, craig MONSANTO TO PAY $225,000 PENALTY FOR MISLABELING PDTS Mar. 25/98 AP ST. LOUIS -- The Environmental Protection Agency said that Monsanto Co. (MTC) has agreed to pay a $225,000 penalty for mislabeling some Roundup herbicide products. The EPA also said it was the largest settlement ever paid for violation of the Worker Protection Standards of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Monsanto distributed mislabeled Roundup containers on at least 75 occasions, the EPA said. The label for the herbicide restricts entry into a treated area for 12 hours. Monsanto notified the EPA that it had distributed the herbicide with labels that incorrectly stated a restricted entry interval of four hours. The EPA said that exposure to this particular form of Roundup herbicide can cause eye irritation, and the herbicide is harmful if swallowed or inhaled.. Monsanto spokeswoman Lisa Drake said the error happened in July 1997. "We took immediate action and cooperated fully to ensure full compliance," she said. She also said that the error concerned only a small number of customers and did not involve Roundup Ultra, the agricultural herbicide, or Roundup Ready-to-Use. craig k harris department of sociology michigan state university 429b berkey hall east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 From ???@??? Thu Mar 12 09:55:39 1998 From: Anne Macmillan To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Specifications for Enclosed Cab Date: Thu Mar 12 10:39:01 1998 Content-Length: 91 Lines: 2 Where would I find the specifications for the engineering of a WPS-compliant enclosed cab?