From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Mon Aug 1 09:03:50 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA14333 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 09:03:50 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFE799ITA88WW6HR@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 11:58:53 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFE74447SG8Y52IN@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 11:55:02 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 11:52:59 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Mon, 01 Aug 1994 11:52:59 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 11:35:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: RE: Reentry Madness To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFE752Z59E8Y52IN@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 11:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;95251110804991/1460987@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 A product-specific restricte-entry interval, based on data collected in accordance with Section 158.390 and Subdivision K of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, shall supersede any restricted-entry interval applicable to the product under Section 156.208 (these are the generic REIs). All agricultural products are covered by some sort of REI: either generic, permanent, or interim. Permanent REI's based on adequate data will be retained, and these may be longer or shorter than generic REI's set by Section 156. Interim REI's that are longer than the generic REI's will also be retained. Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9 From VINEGUY@aol.com Mon Aug 1 20:16:18 1994 Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net (mail02.prod.aol.net [192.203.190.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA08201 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 20:16:16 -0700 From: VINEGUY@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA23733; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 23:15:45 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Sender: "VINEGUY" Message-Id: <9408012216.tn483754@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Mon, 01 Aug 94 22:16:19 EDT Subject: Bilingual Trainging Aids The vineyard I work for has been gearing up to train bilingual illiterate workers to meet requirements for WPS worker training. We would like suggestions on videos that meet EPA approval. Have any of you seen or used something you think would work? This is to train seasonal workers at harvest time. Thanks to all. Andy Spradley, Biltmore Estate Vineyard From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Aug 2 08:40:45 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA25063 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:40:44 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id IAA17394; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:40:36 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:40:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199408021540.IAA17394@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Tape & Concerns pesticide safety video concerns about items part of required training Andy Spradley, Biltmore Estate Vineyard & WPS netters: There is a tape made by the University of Idaho that has been approved for both handlers and worker safety training (both English & Spanish versions) are included. I would suggest, as with any other such training tool, that you view the video before showing to workers. WPS requirements force trainers (and this video) to warn workers about long term effects of pesticides. I am glad you asked the question Andy, because as a possible would-be trainer I am concerned with what it appears workers must be informed about: possible sterility in males, birth defects, sensitivity to pesticides, and so on. I agree that risks caused by pesticides need to be shared with workers. But these risks must somehow be presented in a balanced manner. Yes, if you go jogging in the Sierras you may encounter a mountain lion, but if you stay in your home and don't exercise there could be worse. Many farm workers, because of tradition, language barriers, and educational level have little choice of a career. When farm workers who do not even handle pesticides have to be informed that they may suffer reproductive ailments, I wonder how many times workers will point to pesticides the next time a baby is born with a birth defect? Are farmers who send workers to training meetings at UC going to think I am trying to scare workers? I would love to hear input and suggestions on these matters. Once again, I do NOT want to either deny farm workers the right to know about possible future health hazards, nor do I want to be an alarmist. Gregory > > > *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************* From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Aug 2 09:02:26 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA27519 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 09:02:26 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA20917; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 09:02:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 09:02:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199408021602.JAA20917@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS TAPE-2 Sorry, I never gave you the address of how to obtain the Idaho tape: College of Agriculture Agricultural Communications Center University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83844-2332 FAX 208-885-6436 PHONE 208-885-9046 COST: $19.95 plus $3 shipping and handling. Approved EPA video for both worker and handler training: EPA # WPS-10-WH-1 Gregory *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************* From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Aug 2 09:02:32 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA27535 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 09:02:31 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA20942; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 09:02:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 09:02:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199408021602.JAA20942@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS regulations? I would like to know (short answer, please) (1) when will there be a final decision as to who is qualified to train workers and handlers to comply with WPS in California? (2) If there are farmers or FLCs who want to train their employees before January 1994 to meet requirements of EPA will cards for these workers follow after? I am anxious to offer a safety training seminar for pesticide safety training. But I want some guarantee that this training will count for EPA and farmers will not have to send their employees back to training two months after, because the training failed to meet some requirement. I am waiting to hold training until I can tell employers and workers that in fact this training will be recorded and count for both of them. Thanks for your help. Gregory Farm Advisor *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************* From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Aug 2 12:59:47 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA17878 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 12:59:46 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFTSBPAAO8WWDKD@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 15:54:54 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFTNP7UAO8Y55D2@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 15:51:35 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 15:49:01 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Tue, 02 Aug 1994 15:49:01 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 15:19:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: RE: WPS Tape & Concerns To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFFTOPZMKE8Y55D2@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;10945120804991/1468959@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 I share the concerns that have been expressed on the forum, about the difficulties in informing workers about sensitive issues such as sterility and birth defects without alarming them unnecessarily. The WPS requires that workers be informed about these long- term health effects. Workers have a right to know about the hazards they might face in their work, and it is important that workers understand these hazards so they understand the importance of washing their hands regularly, using protective equipment properly, and respecting restricted-entry intervals. Many agricultural workers do not have the option of leaving agricultural work. It would be unfair to exaggerate the hazards of exposure to pesticides--that might lead workers to believe that they can do nothing to protect themselves, when, in fact, there is much that workers can do. Training should clearly explain the hazards, and should explain what workers should do to protect against exposure. The sensitivity of these issues is one reason why train-the-trainer programs are such a good idea: someone may already know about pesticides, but not feel comfortable teaching pesticide safety. --Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9, San Francisco From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Aug 2 13:22:35 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA20616 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 13:22:34 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFUIA9O4G8WWDZ9@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 16:14:57 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFUE3NN408Y5591@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 16:12:08 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 16:07:47 EDT MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 02 Aug 1994 16:07:47 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 15:49:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: RE: WPS regulations? To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFFUF61TZQ8Y5591@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 16:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;74706120804991/1469140@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 In response to the question "Can I start training workers?": The decision about who is qualified to train in California rests ultimately with California Department of Pesticide Regulation. EPA has laid out the requirements for WPS, but DPR may change these. DPR does plan to use the EPA worker training verification card, but has not yet submittted a request to EPA for the cards. Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9, San Francisco From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Aug 2 14:33:09 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA27284 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 14:33:08 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFWVRMXPC8WW80T@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 17:22:51 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFWSJPOBK8Y566T@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 17:20:17 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 17:17:33 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Tue, 02 Aug 1994 17:17:33 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 16:48:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: RE: REENTRY MADNESS To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFFWSNUWMI8Y566T@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 17:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;33717120804991/1469716@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 I have fallen a bit behind in responding to e-mail issues, and may already have addressed the question about why there are generic REIs. But it's a good question and one that I face often, so it's worth repeating myself. Most of the pesticides in use are going through a re-registration process--that is because the products were originally registered when we (as in all of us, generally) didn't know a lot about the long-term and environmental effects of pesticides. There was relatively little involved in registering a pesticide before about 1980. Back in the early 1980's, we (all of us, generally) realized that we (EPA) needed to know more about the health and environmental effects of pesticides. Rather than pull all the pesticides off the market until all this information could be collected, the pesticides were left on the market and the manufacturers were told what information EPA would need in order to determine whether and how each product could be used safely. One type of information that is still missing for many pesticides relates to restricted-entry intervals: how does a chemical degrade in the field, how much exposure do workers face, and so forth. Once this information is collected and provided to EPA, a product-specific REI is set, and this will supersede the generic REI. But since there are so many products that do not have this information collected yet, EPA established generic REIs, and products are grouped into these generic REI categories based on whatever information we have about the chemical--not the inert ingreadients, but only the active ingredients. The generic REI is nobody's idea of heaven. But without information about the occupational hazard each chemical represents, the generic REI is the best estimate EPA could arrive at. Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9, San Francisco From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Aug 2 15:08:08 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA00291 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 15:08:08 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFYC0ZFVK8WWFUT@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:04:18 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFFY8XF1OG8Y563R@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:01:42 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 17:57:42 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Tue, 02 Aug 1994 17:57:42 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 17:29:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: RE: Bilingual Trainging Aids To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFFY906G008Y563R@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 17:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;24757120804991/1469991@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 In addition to the Idaho video for training workers and handlers, EPA has approved (in fact, funded) another English/Spanish worker training video, prepared by the National Migrant Resource Program, based in Austin, Texas. (NMRP produced "The Playing Field" a few years ago, which some subscribers may be familiar with.) This new WPS video is available from Gempler's (1-800-382- 8473), but I do not have a price. Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9, San Francisco From Zax0114@aol.com Wed Aug 3 03:56:22 1994 Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net (mail02.prod.aol.net [192.203.190.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id DAA19255 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 03:56:21 -0700 From: Zax0114@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA15016; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 06:55:50 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Sender: "Zax0114" Message-Id: <9408030655.tn553299@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Wed, 03 Aug 94 06:55:48 EDT Subject: Re: REENTRY MADNESS One thing to remember about REI's - effectively they cover 1 day longer than the interval. A 24 hour interval usually means more like 48 hours. If a 24 hour REI material is applied Monday morning, the crew can't come back into that field until sometime on Tuesday morning. Practically speaking, that means they can't come back until Wednesday morning because typically the crew does not change locations once they start working in a field. Here is where the reentry after a "spray has dried" was handy - the crew could return the "next day" rather than 24.0 hours later. The record keeping is much more difficult with the hour based REI's also as growers in California must keep track of the time of each application, each day and report such in their Pesticide Use Reports rather than the end time of the whole application which might have taken more than one day. Zach Berkowitz, Domaine Chandon From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Wed Aug 3 04:57:12 1994 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id EAA22603 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 04:57:11 -0700 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA20824; Wed, 3 Aug 94 07:57:09 -0400 Message-Id: <9408031157.AA20824@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 94 07:57 EDT From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: RE: Bilingual Trainging Aids To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <01HFFY906G008Y563R@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> > In addition to the Idaho video for training workers and handlers, > EPA has approved (in fact, funded) another English/Spanish worker > training video, prepared by the National Migrant Resource > Program, based in Austin, Texas. (NMRP produced "The Playing > Field" a few years ago, which some subscribers may be familiar > with.) This new WPS video is available from Gempler's (1-800-382- > 8473), but I do not have a price. > > Kay Rudolph > Worker Protection Program Manager > US EPA Region 9, San Francisco > > > The video Kay refers to is "Siguiendo El Sol/Chasing the Sun." According to EPA's training materials listing, this video satisfies requirements for worker training (not handlers). Personally, I found it somewhat confusing to listen to, as it switches back and forth from English to Spanish and includes English subtitles during the Spanish sequences even though all content is apparently repeated in both languages. From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wed Aug 3 08:56:05 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA07767 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 08:56:04 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id IAA13656; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 08:55:52 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 08:55:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199408031555.IAA13656@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Training Game Ordering "La loteria de los pesticidas" vs. Free copy of the game Dear WPS netters: (1) Purchasing the game: FLCs and farmers have asked me how they can buy a copy of Melanie Zavala's LA LOTERIA DE LOS PESTICIDAS game. The game (in Spanish) is an excellent way of breaking a slonger training session and giving workers a chance to participate more actively. I do not give out any gifts to workers who win, but ask them to stand up and everyone claps and acknowledges they have won. Workers have a lot of fun with it. Cost is $15 per game. Make payment to "UC Regents" and mail it to: ANR Publications University of California 6701 San Pablo Avenue Oakland, CA 94608-1239 or call 510-642-2431 (2) Free copy of the game: Agencies, consultants, and universities may request a free copy of the game from me, if they plan to train farm workers (while the games last!). I obtained a grant for this purpose. Please request the game on your letterhead for your agency, university, or for your work as a safety or personnel consultant. Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************* From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Wed Aug 3 09:33:10 1994 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (ucipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA11615 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 09:33:10 -0700 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199408031633.JAA11615@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 03 Aug 94 09:35:20 PDT Subject: re: WPS regulations? To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 03 Aug 94 09:35:20 PDT Gregorio: All UC Farm Advisors are qualified to train fieldworkers and pesticide handlers under the pending state regulations. Like other trainers, they are required to use EPA and DPR approved training materials. We pushed hard to make certain farm advisors were specifically named as qualified trainers. Others include PCAs, certified private or commercial applicators, county biologists in pesticide use enforcement, registered Professional Foresters, or someone who has completed a UC IPM Project train-the-trainer course. The Director of DPR may also designate others. It is my understanding thahas been trained by any of the above qualified trainers during the past year or from here on, and the training met the WPS and DPR requirements, are considered trained. Pat Marer UC Statewide IPM Project From relane@ucdavis.edu Wed Aug 3 15:36:53 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA10660 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 15:36:53 -0700 From: relane@ucdavis.edu Received: from (null) by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id PAA21318; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 15:36:33 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 15:36:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199408032236.PAA21318@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Gladness Over Response To Reentry Madness I would like to thank everyone that responded to my letter "Reentry Madness". I was surprised to hear that permanent REI's based on adequate data will be retained, and may be longer or shorter than the generic REI's set by the WPS. This prompted me to contact the manufacturers of some of my favorite pesticides, to ask them how the WPS would affect the REI on these pesticides that I have grown to love and cherish. The companies contacted were Abbott Laboratories, AgriDyne, Mycogen and Scott Co. (formerly Grace Sierra). In each case my questions were directed to technical people knowledgeable about the product label situation. In each case they were under the impression that twelve hours was the minimum reentry interval for any category 3 material, regardless of any data collected in accordance with Section 158.390 and Subdivision K of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines. What is the truth? Are there any pesticides that will have reentry intervals shorter than the generic ones proposed by the WPS? How does the EPA disseminate information on the WPS to pesticide manufacturers? There are many pesticides that have been registered in just the last several years. Do thay have the proper information relating to restricted-entry intervals that would enable them to supersede the generic reentry intervals? If pesticide manufacturers are unaware that the generic reentry intervals can be be superseded, they really need to be informed. I would love to see shorter reentry intervals for a number of pesticides. I can hardly thinki of anything better than spraying a tank of M-Pede in the morning and working with my plants by noon. Ron Lane Cc: From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Thu Aug 4 05:22:02 1994 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA01587 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 05:22:01 -0700 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA21246; Thu, 4 Aug 94 08:21:58 -0400 Message-Id: <9408041221.AA21246@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 94 08:21 EDT From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Reciprocity for trainers To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU What are states doing about reciprocity for trainers who have been trained in other states? Are most states accepting these credentials and allowing the trainers to provide verifiable training in their own state, refusing to recognize those trained in other states, or some compromise? Maryland is considering allowing such trainers to conduct training in our state, but sending trainers a packet of extra information that we (state and CES) consider important and which they may not have received any coverage of. This packet would be sent to the trainers when they apply to obtain verification cards for their trainees. A number of professional organizations are now offering train-the-trainer seminars at their national or regional meetings. It would be a shame to refuse such people the right to offer training in our state, since we recognize that we can't do all the training ourselves. Still, we need to know that the trainers will meet our expectations. From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Aug 4 10:27:15 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA21078 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 10:27:15 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 04 Aug 1994 10:27:09 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 10:26:40 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Subject: Response to Marer on training. The statements are basically correct in their reflection of current Response to Marer on training. The statements are basically correct in their reflection of current intentions. They will not be set in concrete until the California regulations are actually adopted later this year. The only issue is that, as I understand it, the use of EPA approved materials is only required if a verification card is going to be issued. Otherwise, any materials that convey the required information can be used (see 170.130 and 230). I don't understand the need for or meaning of (c) (3). This provision could be interpreted as allowing deviatation from the criteria in (c) (4) if no card will be issued. anyway, the bottom line is that I did not see any requirement for "EPA approved" materials. This provision is contained in the contract between state and card issuing trainers and is applicable only to them. If I missed something, I would like to have a citation for the requirement. Roy California Department of Pesticide Regulation From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Thu Aug 4 15:40:30 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA21853 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 15:40:29 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id PAA19420; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 15:40:06 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 15:40:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199408042240.PAA19420@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Training Acceptability of training for WPS requirements Roy, you are not the first person I have heard raise the issue of using required EPA materials. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, to have heard this from Steve Sutter and George Daniels. I am more confused than ever. As I mentioned to Patrick Marer, I am anxious to be able to plan and offer a meeting for farmers to send farm workers for training--but I want the training to "count" in terms of getting workers their 5 year card and this training being accepted by enforcement agencies. I am anxious to hear more about this so I can make plans. Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************* From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Thu Aug 4 15:40:55 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA21916 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 15:40:54 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id PAA19484; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 15:40:43 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 15:40:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199408042240.PAA19484@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: PESTICIDE GAME A limited number of free copies of Melanie Zavala's game LA LOTERIA DE LOS PESTICIDAS are still available if you are a consultant, work for a university, or government teaching safety to agricultural clientele. Please make your request on your university, government, or constultant letterhead, to the address provided below. Sincerely, Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************* From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Thu Aug 4 16:52:53 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA27725 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 16:52:52 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFIUO7X45S8WXPP0@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 19:51:51 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFIUL550MO8Y5HR3@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 19:49:21 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 19:45:42 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Thu, 04 Aug 1994 19:45:42 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 19:35:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: Re: WPS regulations? To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFIUL61PBQ8Y5HR3@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 19:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;24549140804991/1483313@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Pat: Your message about who is qualified to train in California came over garbled. Could you retransmit? Also, has DPR published an interim policy approving the UCD train-the-trainer program? Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9, San Francisco From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Thu Aug 4 17:02:15 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA28366 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 17:02:14 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFIV0RS1Q88WX9ZN@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 20:02:00 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFIUXKWV1S8Y5O57@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 19:59:24 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 19:55:42 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Thu, 04 Aug 1994 19:55:42 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 19:44:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: RE: Gladness Over Response To Reentry Madness To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFIUXN6UG08Y5O57@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 19:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;24559140804991/1483357@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 I have forwarded Ron Lane's latest message on REIs back to EPA headquarters to learn if there is something more to REIs than I had understood. I will post that response as soon as it is available. Kay Rudolph WPS-PM US EPA R9, SF From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Thu Aug 4 17:22:53 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA29674 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 17:22:52 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFIVPTVWPC8WX6EX@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 20:22:08 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFIVML9W9S8Y5O15@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 20:19:32 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 20:15:54 EDT MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Thu, 04 Aug 1994 20:15:54 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 20:04:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: RE: WPS Training To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HFIVMMB4XI8Y5O15@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 20:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;45510240804991/1483417@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Regarding when EPA-approved materials must be used: If a trainer wishes to issue the EPA training verification card, then the trainer must sign an agreement with the state to receive the cards for distribution, and in this agreement, the trainer agrees to use EPA developed or EPA-approved materials. If the trainer does not issue the EPA training verfication card, then the trainer need not use EPA-approved materials. Kay Rudolph WPS-PM US EPA R9, SF From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Fri Aug 5 11:23:40 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA04322 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 11:23:39 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA15042; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 09:58:50 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 09:58:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199408051658.JAA15042@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Training WHEN can trainers sign this agreement with the state and get going on the training? November and December are great months for training, and we will miss them if we do not have either a green light or time to plan ahead. Gregorio > *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************* From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Aug 5 18:50:04 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.92] (gia5mac12.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.92]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA19333 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 18:50:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199408060150.SAA19333@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 18:50:35 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: the training game Kay, Roy, Pat, Gregorio, and Other Seekers or Makers of Truth: It's definitely time to check my understanding about the need to use EPA-approved materials in training California workers. Recapping what I think I have heard in response to Gregory's question a few days ago, Pat says that trainers are required to use EPA and DPR approved training materials. But Kay notes that use of EPA-approved materials is required only as a condition of issuing the EPA training verification card, and that it is up to DPR (Cal/EPA) to set qualifications for trainers in California (and presumably standards for the materials they use?). Roy says that any materials conveying the required information can be used. So it comes down to whether DPR will insist on workers having an EPA card. If it does, then an employer can be busted for letting workers without these cards enter a treated field, even if they had been carefully trained with fine materials that just don't happen to have EPA's blessing. Roy's comments, however, as well as the draft regulatory changes in California, imply that the EPA card will not be necessary here. Sections 6724 & 6764 of the draft California regulations deal with handler and fieldworker training. They specify (1) qualifications for trainers of handlers (trainer must fit ANY one of eight categories, including "other qualification approved by the Director") and for trainers of fieldworkers (seven categories, including "other"), and (2) subjects to be covered in the training (ten each for handlers and fieldworkers). The only reference to an EPA card that I can find in either of these sections is in sec. 6764, which lists "a valid verification of training issued under the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency" as one of the acceptable indicators of having received fieldworker training. Another acceptable indicator is an "other valid certificate of pesticide training approved by the director." While respecting the EPA card, the proposed regulation appears to leave ample room for California to issue its own document, not conditioned on a trainer's using EPA-approved materials. Do I have it right? If so, a UC Farm Advisor (who by virtue of job title fits one of the categories of people automatically qualified to train handlers and workers) who wants to schedule training for fieldworkers can be pretty confident the training will count, as long as s/he uses EPA-approved materials and has signed a deal with state to issue the EPA card. If, however, the Farm Advisor wants to use materials not approved by EPA, there is still a chance that the training will count, depending on DPR's intentions regarding issuance of a state certificate as a substitute for the EPA card. But the requirements for granting state-recognized certificates, and whether EPA will stand for them, may not be settled until the conclusion of negotiations on equivalency and hearings on the regulatory changes. Still with me? Then we can move on to the matter of adequately preparing farm operators and management staff to themselves provide the WPS-required training to their employees. The draft proposed regulations indicate that any such individual (perhaps also including insurance loss control representatives and other service providers) would be authorized to train farm employees if s/he is "A person who has completed a 'train the trainer' program presented by the University of California." Suppose Gregory (as I suppose he does) wants to leverage his efforts by training farmers to be trainers, thereby helping them to develop their managerial skills while reducing the demand on him to train workers. He could hold a meeting appropriately named and defined as a UC program. Are there other features that he, or any other Farm Advisor with similar purpose, should build into the program? I haven't found in the regulations any substantial criteria for proper "train the trainer" programs. Is there to be guidance on this, or is a trainer of trainers simply expected to make good judgements and do the right instructional thing? The more that is left to the discretion of trainers of trainers, the more important it is to know who trained them. Howard Rosenberg University of California at Berkeley From Zax0114@aol.com Sat Aug 6 14:05:03 1994 Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net (mail02.prod.aol.net [192.203.190.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA26330 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 1994 14:05:03 -0700 From: Zax0114@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA07649; Sat, 6 Aug 1994 17:04:32 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Sender: "Zax0114" Message-Id: <9408061704.tn724172@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Sat, 06 Aug 94 17:04:31 EDT Subject: Re: the training game What I want to know is, who trains the guy who trains the trainer? From NEARY@aesop.rutgers.edu Sun Aug 7 06:04:05 1994 Received: from aesop.rutgers.edu (aesop.rutgers.edu [128.6.59.6]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA02405 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 1994 06:04:04 -0700 From: NEARY@aesop.rutgers.edu Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 9:04:03 -0400 (EDT) To: INTERNET"wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu" CC: NEARY@aesop.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <940807090403.76c3@aesop.rutgers.edu> Subject: stop subscription Please cancel my subscription by removing me from the forum. Thank you. Phil Neary, 609-863-0110 From CHMELIAR@UCRAC1.UCR.EDU Mon Aug 8 09:58:41 1994 Received: from UCRAC1.UCR.EDU (ucrac1.ucr.edu [138.23.225.12]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA13797 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 1994 09:58:40 -0700 From: CHMELIAR@UCRAC1.UCR.EDU Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-Id: <940808100038.22472954@UCRAC1.UCR.EDU> Subject: RE: stop subscription please stop my subscription or give me the stop code. Thanks for the information received so far, Tom Miller (909) 787-3886 From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Mon Aug 8 13:46:06 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA18736 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 1994 13:46:05 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFO9884EIO8WYR85@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 8 Aug 1994 16:43:11 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HFO94TKWW08Y68G1@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 8 Aug 1994 16:40:15 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 8 Aug 1994 16:36:26 EDT MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Mon, 08 Aug 1994 16:36:26 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 08 Aug 1994 16:22:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: Respirators and Enclosed Cockpits To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HFO954AZFY8Y68G1@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Mon, 08 Aug 1994 16:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;62636180804991/1498171@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 An earlier message had raised the issue of respirators in enclosed cockpits. The subscriber had been reviewing the proposed California regulations and noticed that CA proposed to allow persons in enclosed cockpits to dispense with respiratory equipment listed on the pesticide label--the subscriber wondered why this was so. This California proposal mirrors the EPA requirement in the WPS. During the rule-making process, EPA received a number of comments that persuaded the Agency that an enclosed cockpit did provide adequate protection (an airplane is not trapped within the mist as a ground rig would be) and that unnecessary equipment might pose a hazard to safe operation of the airplane. Kay Rudolph WPS-PM US EPA R9, SF From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Tue Aug 9 10:37:23 1994 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (ucipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA03939 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 1994 10:37:22 -0700 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199408091737.KAA03939@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 09 Aug 94 10:39:32 PDT Subject: "The Training Game" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 09 Aug 94 10:39:32 PDT I think you are correctHoward: I think you are correct in assuming that EPA and DPR approved training materials are only required if the trainer has entered into an agreement with DPR/EPA to issue verification cards. As I understand it, verification cards are only going to be used for training of fieldworkers. Because California has requirements for yearly training of pesticide handlers, this training will be California's requirements. Verification cards will not be used, but trainers must document the training. It must meet the WPS requirements plus California requirements. California requires training to be specific to each pesticide handled and must be completed before any handling is done. Our booklet "The Illustrated Guide to Pesticide Safety" (UCANR Publication 21488 and 21489) were developed for employers in California to meet the California training requirements. We will revise it to include the additional WPS requirements once these become final. The training record that comes with the instructor's edition (#21489) includes all the WPS requirements to date. It's in English on one side and Spanish on the other, and allows for pesticide- specific training. I can mail or fax a copy to anyone who requests it. (the training record, not the booklet). The other issue you mentioned pertains to who can train trainers. The draft of the California regulations that is now circulation  in circulation lists a category as anyone who has completed a UC train the trainer course. Cooperative Extension Train- The-Trainer course. I've checked on this, and it is incorrect as written. DPR plans to change this to read "anyone who has attended a UC Statewide IPM Project train-the-trainer program." They will also qualify any other train-the-trainer program under the "other" category. However, I don't think they have set criteria for this. Our train-the-trainer program was set up several years ago with a great deal of input from DPR and others. It has been modified several times and reviewed by DPR and EPA. We have proposed to conduct a train the trainer of trainers "train the trainer of trainers" (T-3) program to help people to become trainers of trainers through the "other" category. I think this could be useful to farm advisors, CAPCA, WACA, PAPA, and other interested groups. In fact, representatives from these groups support this concept. So far, our program has trained 411 people to be trainers of pesticide handlers and ag fieldworkers. These names have been sent to DPR and are also kept on file in our office. Each of these trainers has received Worker Protection Standard information and training materials from us. DPR will recognize these people as meeting the qualification to be trainers. Our programs this fall will enable another 400+ people to become recognized as trainers of handlers and/or fieldworkers. From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Aug 9 14:58:40 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.18] (gia3mac8.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.18]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA12607 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 1994 14:58:38 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 14:58:39 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: message from Tim Vaux The following message, submitted to the forum by Tim Vaux, did not make it out in the automated distribution so I am re-sending it. Dana Keil, Listproc mailing list manager, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley --------------- Re-sent message follows ----------------------- From: NAME: Tim Vaux FUNC: AG./REG & ENV ISSUES TEL: 302/992-6208 To: NAME: VMSMail User "wps-forum <"WPS-FORUM@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU"@ESDS01@MRGATE> I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE ON THE REENTRY INTERVALS WE WILL BE DEALING WITH UNDER WPS. THEY ARE, AS RON LANE OF UC DAVIS POINTS OUT, ARBITRARY AND BASED ONLY ON ACUTE TOXICITY VALUES FOR DERMAL, EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION. AS PART OF WPS IN 40 CFR SECTION 156.208(E), IT IS STATED THAT GENERIC REI'S CAN BR REPLACED IF ONE CONDUCTS THE STUDIES OUTLINED IN 40 CFR PART 158.390, THE REENTRY PROTECTION DATA REQUIREMENTS (ALSO REFERENCE SUBDIVISION K GUIDELINES). THE COST OF RUNNING THESE STUDIES IS ABOUT $250,000. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES "BY CONDUCTING THESE TESTS WILL IT LEAD TO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERIC REI'S GIVEN UNDER WPS AND CAN WE GAIN $250,000 WORTH OF COMPETITIVE VALUE FOR HAVING A LOWER REI?" DON'T EXPECT A LOT OF REGISTRANTS TO EXPEND THE RESOURCES REQUIRED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. JUST A DOSE OF REALITY, FOLKS. TIM VAUX REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MANAGER DUPONT AG PRODUCTS WILMINGTON, DELAWARE From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Wed Aug 10 07:46:13 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA21934 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 1994 07:46:12 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id HAA09844; Wed, 10 Aug 1994 07:46:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199408101446.HAA09844@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4832; Wed, 10 Aug 94 07:45:57 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 8661; Wed, 10 Aug 94 07:45:57 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7150; Wed, 10 Aug 94 10:45:56 EDT Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 10:40:42 EDT From: Al French Subject: Reentry Intervals To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: Thanks to Tim Vaux for posting a chemicals industry perspective on reentry intervals (REIs). I suspect that many of us do not appreciate how often the cancellation of pesticide uses is due to regulatory burden rather than being banned by EPA. This not only deprives minor users needed materials, but it also inhibits the development of reduced-risk pesticides for minor uses. Hand labor is primarily used in these minor-use crops. I'm perplexed by the statement: "SO THE QUESTION BECOMES 'BY CONDUCTING THESE TESTS WILL IT LEAD TO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERIC REI'S GIVEN UNDER WPS AND CAN WE GAIN . . . COMPETITIVE VALUE FOR HAVING A LOWER REI?' DON'T EXPECT A LOT OF REGISTRANTS TO EXPEND THE RESOURCES REQUIRED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. . . ." As the WPS was being developed, USDA was advised that all pesticides were being reregistered and that EPA would require studies to establish new science-based product-specific REIs that would supersede the generic WPS REIs (and could be of longer or shorter duration). Tim, are you saying something different from this? Or, that it costs registrants more to justify lower REIs? Or, is it that some uses may be abandoned because they do not justify the investment in the reregistration process? Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Wed Aug 10 14:46:30 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA06656 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 1994 14:46:29 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id OAA06195; Wed, 10 Aug 1994 14:46:28 -0700 Message-Id: <199408102146.OAA06195@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9134; Wed, 10 Aug 94 14:46:13 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 6110; Wed, 10 Aug 94 14:46:13 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 0002; Wed, 10 Aug 94 17:46:12 EDT Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 17:44:18 EDT From: Al French Subject: WPS Training Agreements To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: The text of the agreement which EPA requires of states that wish to issue WPS training verification cards to trainers is: ------------------------Text of Agreement----------------------- WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD TRAINING VERIFICATION PROGRAM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT As a condition for participating in the Worker Protection Standard Training Verification Program, I will keep a record of the EPA training verification card numbers issued to training providers within the State. I also will require that training providers comply with the following: 1. Issue EPA training verification cards only to trainees who have been trained according to the requirement of the 1992 Federal Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR Part 170.130 and 170.230), including the correct use of training materials developed or approved by EPA. 2. Record trainee information on the verification cards, in ink or other indelible form. 3. Retain a copy of a dated class roster signed by the trainer and the trainee, with card number issued to the trainee, and the city or county and state where training occurred. 4. Issue EPA training verification cards that match EPA specifications or that comply with State variations from such specifications that have prior approval from EPA. 5. Promptly respond to requests from EPA, state, or tribal agencies or agricultural employers for information concerning issued EPA training verification cards. State Lead Agency: Address Signature of Responsible Person: Date: Phone Number: Number of EPA Training Verification Cards Requested: Handler:____ Worker____ ----------------------------End Text---------------------------------- The trainers agreement is identical except for the lead paragraph: ------------------------Text of Agreement----------------------------- I agree to issue EPA pesticide safety training verification cards to agricultural workers and/or handlers only in full compliance with the following requirements. I will: Same as 1-5 aboveY. Name, Address, Signature, Date, Phone NumberY EPA Training Verification Cards Issued: Handler #______ to #______ Worker #______ to #______ ----------------------------End Text---------------------------------- Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From VINEGUY@aol.com Wed Aug 10 18:17:34 1994 Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net (mail02.prod.aol.net [192.203.190.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA10057 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 1994 18:17:33 -0700 From: VINEGUY@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA06932; Wed, 10 Aug 1994 21:17:02 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Sender: "VINEGUY" Message-Id: <9408102117.tn925937@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 21:17:00 EDT Subject: re.training videos question Thanks to all who responded to my question about videos for training bilingual workers. The Idaho tape is available from several sources. There has been some concern over technical errors in the production. Any one out there who could give a review of this film? The other film from the National Migrant Resource Program, "Chasing the Sun" although listed in the Gemplers catalog is not available. I spoke with Gina Lombardi at NMRP, she says since the EPA has extended the implementation of the training requirements the video is still in the post production stage. Hopefully to be out by January. As of now the price is $29.95. Thanks for the input. Andy Spradley, Biltmore Vineyards From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Aug 11 08:23:45 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.35] (gia3mac25.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.35]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA17767 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:23:43 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:23:44 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: message from T. Vaux From: NAME: Tim Vaux FUNC: AG./REG & ENV ISSUES TEL: 302/992-6208 To: NAME: VMSMail User "wps-forum <"WPS-FORUM@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU"@ESDS01@MRGATE> In answer to Al French's note, I wanted to respond and provide some clarification to my previous "industry perspective" note. Al if absolutely correct in stating that as part of the reregistration process we will be required to provide more info on REI's and we will have to expend the money to do that. It is EPA's current position that they are most concerned about insecticides (excl. biologicals) and fungicides from an acute and chronic standpoint, respecitvely. Herbicides are not a major concern at the present time. However, it has been rumored that EPA could exercise a "data call in" (DCI) for REI's and force the issue on a faster track than the reregistration process would normally allow. In that case, registrants would be forced to prioritize products and uses and the investment decisions we would have to make could spell the demise of some uses. There is a National Agricultural Chemicals Association (soon to be remnamed the American Crop Protection Association) Task Force being formed to work with the EPA on this issue to ensure precipitous action is not taken. I didn't mean to sound like the sky is falling, only to alert you to the costs of doing the work and the decisions we would have to make (opposite other ways of spending our money) if we had to do the work either earlier than we intended or to gain a competitive advantage in the short term before reregistration required us to do the work. Hopefully, the NACA Task Force and the EPA can work together to make for a smooth transition. Regards...Tim -- Dana From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Aug 11 10:48:57 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA21414; Thu, 11 Aug 1994 10:48:55 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 11 Aug 1994 10:50:24 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 10:49:46 -0700 To: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: In response to questions on california's intentions re. the training verification cards. In response to questions on california's intentions re. the training verification cards. At this time... We intend to participate in the (field) worker verification portion of the program. Having a card is NOT a requirement to work as a fieldworker. It is an option. The worker can present the card as evidence that he/she has already been trained. This may have some impact on employability, especially in times of surplus labor. The employer is responaible to ensure that all employees are trained as required. However, there is no record keeping requirement for fieldworker training. There are other forms of prior training that will be recognized: certifired aplicator (all kinds), other state card holders, and anyone trained as a handler pursuant to Title 3 CCR, section 6724. Qualified trainers remain as listed in the recently released proposal. We have sent a signed contract to the USEPA for the card program. We are preparing an application/agreement form for use bby trainers to participate. It should be available shortly. What Pat said about the UC Statewide IPM project is correct. At this time they are the only provider we plan to recogneze officially. No, Kay, We haven't sent out any letter to that effect yet, it is only in the proposed regs. To anyone who may not have understood Pat's reference to "T3"; This grew our of a complex discussion on trainers (T1), trainers of trainers (T2), and trainers of trainersof trainers (T3). It became the shorthand used to refer to these groups. At this time we are "cautious" about approving other T2 or T3 providers (this is a soft no). Demand may change our minds. We are currently discussing the possibility of recognizing at least some trainers recognized by other states, perhaps only bordering states, since it has been brought to our attention that some may conduct training on both sides of the border. At this time... We do NOT intend to participate in the handler training verification portion on the program. The current California progran will remain in place with minor criteria additions to cover WPS items and , of course. the trainer qualification requirements for agricultural handlers. Handlers trained out-of-state will not automatically be recognized as trained in California. It is likely ( no gurantees however. as It's not my ultimate decision) that training provided by qualified trainers now will be recognized and cards could be distributed later after agreement. Kay, would EPA have any heartburn with this? We are preparing a letter to county commissioners (with a similar letter planned for farm labor contractors) to more fully explain current plans. Maybe after that I'll have more to say on this subject. Roy From nclifton@ent.umass.edu Thu Aug 11 13:35:58 1994 Received: from pobox.ucs.umass.edu (pobox.ucs.umass.edu [128.119.166.150]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA27180 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 1994 13:35:56 -0700 Received: from titan.ucs.umass.edu by pobox.ucs.umass.edu (PMDF V4.3-8 #6523) id <01HFSFUROV5C000LBJ@pobox.ucs.umass.edu>; Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:35:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (nclifton@localhost) by titan.ucs.umass.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) id QAA05029 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:35:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:35:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Natalia P Clifton Subject: Train-the-Trainer Workshop To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <199408112035.QAA05029@titan.ucs.umass.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-length: 1374 Approval? Train-the-Trainer Program offered by Agricultural Retailers Association Recently our SLA (Massachusetts) received a faxed request for approval of a train-the-trainer program sponsored by Agricultural Retailers Association for the dates of August 7-9, 1994. The meeting was conducted by (I think) someone from the SLA in Nevada. I would be interested to know whether or not st ates "approved" this program as is, or required additional steps for attendees; or simply denied the request. I am sure that there will be more requests of this nature but it is very difficult to make these decisions without some guidance from EPA. Therefore, I would appreciate input from other states to see if we are on the right track. For your info: I commented to our SLA (Mass.) that based on the agenda there was not enough time dedicated to training. It was unclear as to whether or not there would be a flipchart demonstration as well as a viewing of the more recent videos that have been developed to train workers and handlers. In keeping with these comments, it would seem that an attendee would probably have to attend a two-hour workshop on how-to-conduct worker (and handler) training before they could participate in the verification program in Massachusetts. Thank you Natalia P. Clifton University of Massachusetts CES nclifton@ent.umass.edu From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Mon Aug 15 12:51:20 1994 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA24338 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:51:16 -0700 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA04150; Mon, 15 Aug 94 15:51:25 -0400 Message-Id: <9408151951.AA04150@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 15:51 EDT From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Train-the-Trainer Workshop To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <199408112035.QAA05029@titan.ucs.umass.edu> Natalia, I recently put through a similar request to yours for information on what states are doing about allowing trainers trained in other states to offer training. I received only one reply. Maryland has received a request to approve training conducted as part of the annual meeting of the Nat'l. Org. of Chem. Retailers (they want to hold a train-the-trainer session). MDA and I agreed that we would allow them to conduct training in Maryland but that we would first send them a packet of information. The information we're sending out will contain a couple of leaflets that I've developed for training trainers as well as some info MDA wants to send. I figure we'll be getting employees with verifiable cards issued in other states by trainers with possibly questionable (to us) credentials, so it wouldn't be fair to allow trainers not to offer training within our state just because they were originally trained elsewhere. Besides, we don't really want to be stuck with forcing every trainer to receive training within our state and provided by us (MDA and me). Amy From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Aug 16 18:48:58 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.110] (gia5mac30.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.110]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA09703 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 1994 18:48:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199408170148.SAA09703@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 18:49:59 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: worker training here and there Thank you, Pat and Roy, for responding to my questions about fieldworker training and fieldworker-trainer training in California. You almost have me straightened out, but there are a few points that I'd like to take another stab at clarifying. 1. It is clear that the California DPR will not insist on workers having a card, issued by EPA or anybody else, in order to work in treated fields. DPR will, however, insist that workers be trained (within whatever grace period is eventually settled on). While not required, a recognized training verification card will be useful to workers looking for employment, to employers wanting to minimize training time and expense, and perhaps to Ag Commissioners trying to efficiently enforce the WPS. A card is not the only evidence that a worker has already been trained, but it is quite handy and, as Roy points out, may have some impact on employability. EPA will have a system for issuing nationally recognized cards through trainers. The requirements (in particular that approved materials be used) that EPA attaches to the right to distribute its card, however, may have the effect of adding to the complications and/or costs of training, thus restricting the cadre of providers, and perhaps ultimately reducing the actual delivery of information to workers. If California DPR is confident that workers would be just as well served by education that does not happen to meet all the criteria that EPA sets up for awarding its card, DPR could decide to create an "other valid certificate of pesticide training approved by the director" that trainers can more easily qualify to issue. Because such a certificate or card would not necessarily be honored outside of this state, it would not be quite as valuable as an EPA card to workers, or to employers in other states, but it would be fine to serve needs in California. Is California planning to create its own training verification document? 2. Is this the kind of document, Roy, that you referred to in mentioning that "other state card holders" are to be recognized in California as having had prior training? That is, are we talking about an "other card" issued by this state, or a card issued by an "other state?" If the former, when will trainers here be able to get hold of them? 3. If the latter meaning is the right one (cards from other states are recognized), is there to be any screening of those cards based on what their issuing states require to obtain them, or will all be honored automatically? Recent messages from Natalia and Amy show concern in Massachusetts and Maryland about accepting trainers and training verification cards from other states. They seem to be grappling with possibility of outside providers issuing cards to verify training that would not cut it in their own states. I haven't heard of this being addressed in California yet. 4. Amy, will Maryland try to assess whether the information you put in the packet for outsiders ever becomes part of the training you allow them to conduct in your state? Seems like it's high time for states with their own cards to start discussing the terms of reciprocity. Maybe this is what you have been suggesting all along. Not hard to envision a few states developing a master agreement that others could gradually buy into. Hard to make happen, but not to envision. 5. On the who-trains-the-trainer front, I now understand that what DPR really intends to say in its proposed regulations is that the sole franchise will be granted to the UC Statewide IPM Project, but that this position may change. A procedure may be considered to qualify others' T-2 programs. Since the IPM program has benefitted from DPR and EPA review over the years, a description of its structure and content could contribute to both (a) development of programs by prospective T-2 providers who already have pesticide knowledge and training skills, and (b) establishment of sound criteria for DPR to assess applicants who apply for T-2 qualification, should the market ever be opened to them. Howard Rosenberg University of California From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Wed Aug 17 09:36:19 1994 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (ucipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA17850 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 09:36:15 -0700 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199408171636.JAA17850@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 17 Aug 94 09:40:25 PDT To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 17 Aug 94 09:40:25 PDT Howard: I think you are correct in your assumptions on the verification card. However, there is a unique difference between California requirements and those of other states that may be clouding the issue. The WPS talks about separate verification cards for handlers and for fieldworkers. California will not have verification cards for pesticide handlers because the state law mandates that employers must provide yearly training to all handlers, and this training goes above and beyond the WPS in training requirements and frequency. California's requirements are also pesticide-specific, while the WPS requirements are generic. All employers in California are subject to this requirement, which has been in effect for about 5 years. Therefore, there would be no way that handlers from other states who have received training there could be considered trained in California--they may meet the WPS requirements but would still be lacking by California law. This may be the same issue that Amy and Natalia are concerned about in their states, since many states have requirements above and beyond the WPS for handlers. I can't speak for DPR, but I think they are intending to allow fieldworkers who have cards issued in other states be considered to be trained workers in California under WPS. This still does not relieve the California employers from complying with the hazard communication requirements and other unique California requirements that are in effect now. To be a trainer in California a person must meet the California trainer requirements. This includes qualified trainers from other states. This is not so difficult and should not be a barrier to most people. The logic to this provision is that it assures that someone who is providing training has some knowledge of pesticide safety and California laws pertaining to the use and handling of pesticides. We shouldn't expect anything less than than. The least expensive way to become a trainer is by taking the DPR Qualified Applicator Certificate examination. There is a $25 fee for taking the Laws and Regulations and General Principles exam and one category examination. The certificate is good for two years and can be renewed by obtaining 20 hours of accredited continuing education (including 4 hours in laws and regulations) and paying a renewal fee of $30. Unfortunately, the exam is given only in English, so someone who is not proficient in English would not be able to become a trainer through this option. Taking our train-the-trainer course costs $40 for fieldworker only training (for Spanish- speakers) or $100 for handler/fieldworker training. There is no renewal requirement at this time. Our course fees includes training materials and, for the handler/fieldworker course, a sizeable "Instructor's Handbook." Our handler/fieldworker course is offered in English only at this time, but when we find the resources to develop Spanish versions of the materials, we will offer a Spanish-language version. Course materials that we've developed for our train-the-trainer programs have received a lot of input from the industry, regulators, and UC experts. The ag industry made a sizeable financial investment to defray the original costs of development several years ago. The materials have undergone two significant revisions with review by many people to keep them up-to-date. I would hope that any other groups providing train-the-trainer programs would benefit from these same materials rather than developing new ones. I strongly feel that any T-2 program should meet similar criteria to the one we now provide so that all instructors going through these programs are similarly qualified. We have proposed offering a T-3 program (training the trainers-of-trainers) where we would make these and other materials available to participants. Although our courses may seem expensive to some, we have estimated that the actual cost of our handler/fieldworker trainer course is $96.85 per person (course fee is $100) and the cost of the Spanish-language fieldworker trainer course is $63.70 per person (course fee is $40). These costs do not include salaries of the instructors. I am looking at innovative ways for offsetting the deficit, including some cost-cutting, because we have no UC resources (other than salaries) or USDA funding for this program. From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed Aug 17 10:38:13 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA19736; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:38:10 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:40:16 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:39:55 -0700 To: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re., Howard's further questions on CA training. Re., Howard's further questions on CA training. I have read Pat's response and find it essentially consistent with our current thinking. Q 1. NO! CA is NOT planning on creating its own fieldworker training document. Q 2. NO. The reference to "other valid personal license or certificate issued by the Department" refers to the various kinds of plastic cards currently issued after a person passes a written examination giver by the Department. Not all of these are considered to be "certified applicators", by the way. We intend to recognize fieldworker training verification cards issued by other states under the USEPA program, but not others. There will be nothing new to get hold of. Q 3. The USEPA cards issued in other states will be accepted at face value. Q 4. na Q 5. Correct. I will leave it to Pat to provide and further information on this subject roy From shenkm@BCC.ORST.EDU Wed Aug 17 11:08:24 1994 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA20700 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 11:08:23 -0700 Received: from [128.193.88.177] (Schenk-2036a-I.CORDLEY.ORST.EDU) by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19421; Wed, 17 Aug 94 11:08:55 PDT From: "Myron Shenk" Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 11:11:46 CST Message-Id: <40307.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: I am responding to the wps-forum message to -Howard- that just appeared on my e-mail. In this message the trainer manuals and materials for trainers is mentioned. Unfortunately, the senders name and address is not given. I am interested in obtaining these training materials and would appreciate more information on contents of the materials and would like to know if the materials could be purchased without attending the training course. Thank you. Myron Shenk, Oregon State University. Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wed Aug 17 12:49:57 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA23697 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:49:56 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id MAA23095; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:50:23 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:50:23 -0700 Message-Id: <199408171950.MAA23095@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Training Train-the-trainer training I am concerned that someone can be qualified to be a field worker trainer by attending a train-the-trainer program without passing a thorough test of understanding. Simply attending is not enough. What do you think? Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wed Aug 17 13:07:21 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA24818 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:07:20 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id NAA01724; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:07:47 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:07:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199408172007.NAA01724@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS more Training of trainers-2 It seems more sense to me for people who want to qualify to be a trainer of fieldworkers to take a test offered by the government (designed by IMP folks?). If they can pass the test does it really matter whether they learned the information by attending a train-the-trainer meeting or read a book, took a course at college, etc? Requiring trainers to attend a training session as a condition for being able to qualify as a trainer of fieldworkers is more a measure of imput received rather than potential quality of output to be delivered. Your comments? Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Wed Aug 17 14:05:10 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA26873 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 14:05:10 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id OAA15812; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 14:05:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199408172105.OAA15812@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3637; Wed, 17 Aug 94 14:05:35 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 4626; Wed, 17 Aug 94 14:01:50 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 4276; Wed, 17 Aug 94 17:01:33 EDT Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 16:57:50 EDT From: Al French Subject: WPS Training verification To: WPS Forum X-Acknowledge-To: I've been following the discussion of training verification with interest. But I don't understand why anyone would not want to issue WPS verification cards. The WPS verification card is a universal card that meets EPA requirements in all states and territories. Further, a WPS card (or a State card with EPA imprimatur) is the only prima-facie evidence available that a worker has met the WPS training requirements. If an employer intends to provide or arrange for training it is not necessary to use EPA-approved materials. But there may be questions by enforcement officials whether a particular worker received the training and whether the training was adequate. If the workers have been issued WPS cards in any state the presumption is they have been trained and that the training was adequate. Possession of a WPS training card may affect workers' employability. Granted, states could enter into 2,500+ reciprocity agreements to attempt to duplicate what the WPS card already provides. But why? And wouldn't this lead to a maze of different cards, with different training standards, different retraining intervals, and create confusion as to which states honor which cards and more confusion as to which State cards are WPS-acceptable? As Kay Rudolph (EPA) posted, "If a trainer wishes to issue the EPA training verification card, then the trainer must sign an agreement with the state to receive the cards for distribution, and in this agreement, the trainer agrees to use EPA developed or EPA-approved materials." Using EPA- approved materials does not prevent trainers from using their own materials; they simply must be validated by EPA. This should be no great problem because if the materials are not acceptable to EPA they are unlikely to be acceptable to the State agency that is enforcing EPA's WPS--at least not for long! The agricultural industry has a huge task before it in order to meet the WPS training requirements by next year. EPA estimates 3.9 million workers are affected by the WPS (although not all will require worker training). IMHO, we'll all be glad next year if this year we got as many *WPS* verification cards out to workers as possible. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Aug 17 16:05:49 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.103] (gia5mac23.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA29926 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 16:05:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199408172305.QAA29926@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 16:06:57 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: important EPA-approved materials Thanks again to Pat and Roy for the prompt, informative answers. It is now perfectly clear that the only fieldworker training verification card to be honored here is EPA's, no matter where issued. Simplifies things, and Al will be pleased. This means that even if Cal regulations don't require that EPA materials be used in fieldworker training, any worker possessing a recognized verification card would have to have been trained with such materials. If you tell me I have it wrong this time, I may leap off the building. Now can somebody post the list of EPA-approved materials that Allie Fields was presiding over? Howard From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Aug 17 17:25:41 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.103] (gia5mac23.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA01729 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 1994 17:25:39 -0700 Message-Id: <199408180025.RAA01729@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 17:26:47 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: housekeeping Just a few light system announcements this time. 1. In late June, Kay Rudolph posted the "EPA Questions & Answers on the Exception To Early Entry Restrictions for Rose Growers". This document is now available in the archive as a separate file, named "rose-ex.q+a" (4720 bytes). To get a copy, send (to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu) the message: GET wps-forum rose-ex.q+a 2. The welcome message for new subscribers has been updated. No earth-shaking changes, but if you want the latest, send (to ListProc) the message: INFORMATION wps-forum 3. There are currently 217 of us on the list of subscribers. To get a copy, the message is: RECIPIENTS wps-forum From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Thu Aug 18 04:59:19 1994 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id EAA07233 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 04:59:18 -0700 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA09830; Thu, 18 Aug 94 07:59:53 -0400 Message-Id: <9408181159.AA09830@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 07:59 EDT From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: worker training here and there To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <199408170148.SAA09703@are.Berkeley.EDU> Howard, No, Maryland doesn't at this time have plans to find out whether the materials we send them are incorporated into WPS training. Actually, what we plan to send them is more in a preparatory vein, and helpful (we hope) to the trainers rather than something material that we want them to add as a topic. One of the leaflets provides insight on how to effectively train people rather than specifically what is required under WPS. My understanding of the state's plan is that we will accept trainers trained in other states if the home state finds it acceptable -- thus we won't really need a formal reciprocity agreement. However, I do think formal agreements might be a good idea. This is something we might want to discuss at the next C&T meeting next year in San Diego. Amy From braun@empm.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Aug 18 08:15:26 1994 Received: from nic.tdcnet.ca.gov (nic.tdcnet.ca.gov [134.186.254.252]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA08708 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 08:15:26 -0700 Received: from cdpr.ca.gov (empm.cdpr.ca.gov) by nic.tdcnet.ca.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06245; Thu, 18 Aug 94 08:19:30 PDT Received: from empm68 (empm68.cdpr.ca.gov) by cdpr.ca.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26701; Thu, 18 Aug 94 08:16:26 PDT Message-Id: <9408181516.AA26701@cdpr.ca.gov> X-Sender: braun@empm.cdpr.ca.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 08:22:20 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: braun@empm.cdpr.ca.gov (Adolf Braun) Subject: stop subscribtion X-Mailer: Please stop my subscribtion or give the stop code. Thank you. Adolf L. Braun, Ph.D. Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management (916) 324-4247 braun@empm.cdpr.ca.gov From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Thu Aug 18 09:21:55 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA10308 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:21:55 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA02798; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:22:06 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:22:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199408181622.JAA02798@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: hrnet@cornell.edu Subject: AG HRM Position Vacancy Cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU If you are interested in HRM applied to agricultural settings ... if you like planning your own schedule of activities ... if you like the idea of dividing your time between conducting applied research, writing articles for trade and academic journals, visiting farms, planning and holding one-day seminars for farm employers ... all in a beautiful setting ... this job may interest you. Gregorio POSITION: #ANO94-04, Agricultural Personnel Management Farm Advisor, Sacramento Valley Area An academic career-track appointment in the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, subject to administrative review of position and incumbent's performance. HEADQUARTERS: This position will be headquartered in Butte County and is responsible mainly for the program in an area consisting of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, Yuba, and Tehama Counties. AREA DESCRIPTION: These six counties represent the Northern Region's major agricultural area that is traversed by the Sacramento River. Adjacent to this large fertile valley, which is made up of small agricultural communities, are tree covered mountains and reservoirs that are popular for recreation. The area supports several small dairies, row and orchard crops (olives, peaches, plums, and apples) that require extensive agricultural labor. Farm workers and managers > are represented by diverse ethnic cultures, e.g., Sikh, Hispanic, Southeast > Asian. *** Counties served *** Butte Colusa Glenn Sutter Tehama Yuba CLOSING DATE: November 4, 1994 HOW TO APPLY: To be considered, applicants must submit the following to the address on the last page of this announcement: A. Application: We require eight (8) collated and secured (stapled) copies of the Application Packet, consisting of the following in each packet in this order: 1. Cover Letter 2. UC Application Form 3. Resume 4. College Level Transcripts (photocopies of the original transcript will be accepted. Please obtain these yourself and supply eight (8) copies in the order indicated). 5. Publications, reprints (optional) All eight (8) completed packets will be accepted if postmarked by 5:00 p.m. on the closing date. Incomplete packets received (including uncollated and unsecured packets) will not be accepted and will be returned to the applicant. B. Letters of Reference: Three (3) letters of reference are required and should be sent to the North Region Academic Recruitment Office. Pleases indicate these three references as well as the names and addresses of three additional references on the UC Application form. References should indicate the position number, ANO94-04, on all correspondence. If selected for interview, additional letters may be requested. Letters of reference should be received within one week following the closing date to ensure that they are part of the selection committee's initial review packet NATURE AND PURPOSE: To increase the use of personnel management practices in agriculture that improve economic results while meeting standards of labor law and other public policy. To provide farm operators and other agricultural labor managers with practical research-based education regarding personnel management and to promote the application of it. Provide farm operators with information on changes in labor and safety laws, including labor-related pesticide regulations. While responsible primarily for programs in assigned target counties, incumbent is supported by and contributes to efforts of other staff in the statewide Agricultural Personnel Management Program (APMP) and DANR Region 1. MAJOR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties and responsibilities are used as criteria in the periodic evaluation of the incumbent's performance. Enable and encourage employers, managers, and supervisors of agricultural personnel to improve decision making in such areas as organization and job design, employee recruitment and selection, supervision, training and development, performance assessment and correction, compensation, and dispute resolution. Provide education and generate new information that builds understanding about management options and their results considering pertinent technological, market and regulatory influences. Teach personnel management through group instruction, publications, and individual consultation, and conduct applied research supporting education and demonstration efforts. Prepare articles, research reports, and other teaching references for newsletters, general releases, county publications, industry and scientific journals. Disseminate useful information about farm labor issues through mass media.Identify, analyze, and pursue solutions to producer and industry problems in obtaining and managing agricultural labor. Design and conduct field research projects in cooperation with individual producers, industry groups, UC staff, and other agencies. Inform the public policy process with objective analysis of farm labor issues. Develop area program goals and direction. Prepare and update a long-range plan, annual plan of work and budget proposal, report on activities and results, and document program accomplishments. Collaborate in defining priorities for statewide APMP, and in planning and conducting program activities outside assigned geographical area. Develop a newsletter and maintain a current mailing list. Integrate into educational efforts an understanding of needs and interests of minority group members and organizations. Assist farm owners and operators to meet the objectives of worker protection laws. Continue professional growth in the field of personnel management and related disciplines. Keep abreast of current developments and applicable research. Maintain a high standard of effectiveness in oral and written communications. Participate in University committees; provide other University and public service, appropriate to the position. Perform other duties consistent with position purpose. Act affirmatively to 1) assure nondiscrimination in program delivery on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, age, veteran status, medical condition or handicap, and 2) promote program participation of minorities, women, and other previously underserved groups. Related action and documentation include: a) establishing and maintaining benchmark data base, b) applying reasonable efforts to achieve participation parity among all protected classes of classes of clientele, c) issuing public notification of all educational meetings, d) delivering programs that are equitable to all potential clientele, e) evaluating and reporting affirmative action efforts and accomplishments, and f) making all reasonable effort to remedy any identified disparities in program delivery and participation. RELATIONSHIPS: 1.) Internal a. Plan, develop, and report periodically on a program of work with Butte County Director, who serves as immediate supervisor. Consult as needed in these processes with APMP Director and County Directors in Colusa, Glenn, Sutter/Yuba, and Tehama; inform them of program plans and activities. b. Consult and collaborate with Farm Advisors, Extension Specialists, and other UC Staff in providing information, conducting applied research, and planning programs that involve labor management issues. Supervise clerical, field, or technical staff as appropriate. c. Cooperate and provide liaison with University departments to communicate agricultural industry problems, needs, and research opportunities, and to obtain assistance. 2.) External a. Be available to clientele and respond to inquiries from assigned area as well as other parts of California. b. Provide liaison with agricultural industry and organization leaders regarding personnel management issues, needs, and concerns. c. Work cooperatively with government agencies and educational institutions as opportunities arise. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: A Master's or equivalent earned degree in personnel or human resource management or a closely related field is required.Knowledge of personnel management issues, concepts, principles, practical tools, and underlying theory is essential. Also required are: ability to diagnose management problems and to understand statistics and research methods in the discipline and the ability to conduct research; excellent written and verbal communications skills; ability to pursue funds as needed in support of the program. Familiarity with agriculture, management practices common within the industry, and factors affecting their use is necessary in this position. Incumbent must possess a working knowledge of adult educational processes and skills in public speaking, data analysis, and developing relationships with clientele and cooperators. Familiarity with standard computer applications as appropriate to the responsibilities of the program and understanding of other communication technologies is desirable. Bilingual English/Spanish fluency is advantageous. SALARY AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Beginning salary will be in the Cooperative Extension Assistant/Associate Advisor rank (Assistant minimum is $32,600), commensurate with experience and professional qualifications. Membership in the University of California Retirement Plan and Worker's Compensation Insurance are included. Current University of California advisors and specialists are encouraged to apply and, if selected, would be treated as a lateral transfer. BENEFITS: The University of California offers comprehensive benefits. They include two days paid vacation and one day sick leave per month, and twelve paid holidays per year. A variety of health and dental insurance plans are available. In addition, the University provides basic life and disability insurance, which may be supplemented at group rates. An excellent retirement system is coordinated with social security and optional annuity plans may supplement retirement. Sabbatical and study leaves are available. INTERVIEWS: A Search Committee will review all applications and associated materials and recommend individuals most suitable for the position. Those recommended will be asked to come to Butte County for an interview. Travel expenses for interviews will be reimbursed according to University of California Policy. PLEASE REFER TO POSITION #ANO94-04 IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE. Application and associated materials will not be returned to the applicant. Applications and information may be obtained from: Ms. Deborah Maha, Academic Recruitment Office DANR- North Region University of California Davis, CA 95616 Office: 916/757-8776 FAX: 916/757-8817 E-Mail: damahawalser@ucdavis.edu TDD: 800/698-4544 (TDD calls only) ANO94-04.PVA From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Thu Aug 18 09:22:58 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA10404 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:22:57 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA03530; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:23:29 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:23:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199408181623.JAA03530@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS T-verification I agree with Al French about the importance of the WPS verification card. So much so that I will NOT provide further pesticide safety training to field workers until I can be guaranteed that those workers who attend my workshops (where I plan to use EPA approved materials + additional materials) will qualify for the verification card. I am ready to make any necessary agreements with whoever to keep a log of training. I am anxious to offer training. However, I will not act on a "it is most likely" that this training would be approved retroactively, without a letter stating this in definite terms--it is unfair for the farmers and workers not to provide this verification. Buy the way, it is almost S E P T E M B E R and January 1, 1995, will roll around quickly. Anxious, Gregorio > *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From dyoung@cce.cornell.edu Thu Aug 18 10:24:26 1994 Received: from cce.cornell.edu (EMPIRE.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA12108 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:24:25 -0700 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0qbBEJ-0003V1C; Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:26 EDT Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 13:24:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Dale Young Subject: Re: stop subscribtion To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <9408181516.AA26701@cdpr.ca.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Please stop my subscription From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Aug 19 09:53:53 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA02321 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:53:52 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:56:03 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:55:38 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, AFRENCH%ERS.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re. Al's comments on TVCs Re. Al's comments on TVCs I agree with everthing you said. However, the concern about the card is that it may become, de facto, a license or permit to work. I think this is likely, in time if employerselect not to train but instead hire only previously trained persons. Unless labor is in short supply, this is exactly what I would do. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Aug 19 12:29:09 1994 Received: from DialupEudora (eudora@are.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.175.17]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA06201 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 1994 12:29:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199408191929.MAA06201@are.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 12:35:23 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: your comment on WPS T-verification TERRIFICO!!! Reality for the regulators. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Aug 22 10:14:09 1994 Received: from DialupEudora (eudora@are.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.175.17]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA23256 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 1994 10:14:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199408221714.KAA23256@are.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 10:20:50 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: please forget my last one Forum Subscribers: I want to apologize for cluttering the system last Friday with a personal message that was mistakenly addressed to the forum. Didn't realize the error until it turned up as a general post in my in-box. At best, the brief message adds nothing useful to forum discussion. At worst, it may be confusing or even offensive when taken outside the context and shorthand of frequent dialogue between Gregory and me over many years. Ironically, this note compounds the clutter problem, but the potential meaning problem was too troubling to let sit. While I am sorry to have taken any of your time on this, it does offer an object lesson on dangers of the 'reply' function and the value of reviewing a whole message before sending. Our subscription welcome statement cautions against using 'reply' to send a response to all forum members, as it may instead address the message to the one person whose comment brought the response. What happened to me was the reverse: I hit 'reply' intending to send to one person, but my software put up the forum address. Live and learn. Howard From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Aug 23 19:21:39 1994 Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.7.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA26700 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 1994 19:21:38 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id WAA00861; Tue, 23 Aug 1994 22:21:07 -0400 Date: 23 Aug 94 22:17:01 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Chemical category resistance selection c Message-ID: <940824021700_73507.555_HHB61-1@CompuServe.COM> Can anybody tell me what this is and where one might procure it? Statements are now appearing on labels that say use this specified PPE but if you want more options, "follow the instructions for category 'G' on an EPA chemical resistance category selection chart." Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Aug 24 13:01:32 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.38] (gia3mac28.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA15134 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 1994 13:01:30 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 13:01:32 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Re: Chemical category resistance selection c "Charlotte Coffman" says: Reply to: RE>Chemical category resistanc At least once source of the EPA Chemical Resistance Category Selection Chart can be found in the brochure "Personal Protective Equipment Guide: Choosing Chemical-Resistant PPE." It is a four-fold gate brochure of eight (4 X 9 inch) pages. Yellow and black text and graphics on white paper. It was written in 1990 and revised in 1993. It is available from Resource Center, Cornell Business & Technology Park, Bldg. 7-8, Ithaca, NY 14850, Tel: 607-255-2091. Ask for Brochure Number D 20866N. The cost of $52/100 brochures includes postage and handling. Other guides available from the same source are: 1. Coveralls, Gloves, and Other Skin Protection 2. Clothing Layers for Added Protection 3. Choosing Chemical-Resistant PPE 4. Protective Eyewear 5. Respirators 6. Inspecting, Maintaining, and Replacing PPE 7. Avoiding Heat Stress Prices vary with size of brochure. Several complete sets of these brochures were included at no charge with a portable exhibit "Brush Up on Cover Up," which was sponsored by USEPA and USDA-ES From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Thu Aug 25 08:39:15 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA01237 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 1994 08:39:15 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id IAA26014; Thu, 25 Aug 1994 08:39:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199408251539.IAA26014@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0598; Thu, 25 Aug 94 08:38:03 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 2260; Thu, 25 Aug 94 08:37:35 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 9832; Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:37:20 EDT Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:33:36 EDT From: Al French Subject: Training Verification Cards To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: If anyone has been holding off conducting WPS worker training due to unavailability of EPA Training Verification Cards, please proceed. WPS verification cards may be issued retroactively where training was appropriately conducted. EPA officials say they will immediately issue an announcement to this effect. (Bear in mind that this is Washington where immediately may take a while.) What training is appropriate? The EPA sample State - Training Provider Agreement provides that trainers must: "1. Issue EPA training verification cards only to trainees who have been trained according to the requirement of the 1992 Federal Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR Part 170.130 and Part 170.230), including the correct use of training materials developed or approved by EPA. "2. Record trainee information on the verification cards in ink or other indelible form. "3. Retain a copy of a dated class roster signed by the trainer and the trainee, with card number issued to the trainee, and the city or county and state where training occurred. "4. Issue EPA training verification cards that match EPA specifications or that comply with State variations from such specifications that have prior approval by EPA. "5. Promptly respond to requests from EPA, state, or tribal agencies or agricultural employers for information concerning issued EPA training verification cards." An aside. You may be aware that EPA is considering reducing the 5 year interval before retraining is required. However, training verification cards issued under present regulations will continue to be valid for 5 years because a new rule may only be applied prospectively. If EPA decides to amend the renewal interval it will probably be several months before the new rule becomes effective. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From pjbennett@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Mon Aug 29 18:34:21 1994 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA05966 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 1994 18:34:20 -0700 Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 23200; Mon, 29 Aug 1994 21:31:15 +500 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 21:31:14 +500 From: "Pamela J. Bennett" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU CC: pjbennett@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: <00983B0D.C28AA720.23200@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: wps forum Please delete my name from the forum. From dana Mon Aug 29 22:12:59 1994 Received: from localhost (dana@localhost) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) id WAA07961 for wps-forum; Mon, 29 Aug 1994 22:12:59 -0700 From: "Dana E. Keil" Message-Id: <199408300512.WAA07961@are.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Please address messages properly To: wps-forum Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 22:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 623 Please DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the list and bother everyone else with them. Read the information provided when you signed up which says to send these types of requests to the list processor address -- listproc@are.berkeley.edu -- which will handle the requests automatically. For unsubscribing send the following command in the body of your message (leaving the subject line blank): unsubscribe wps-forum If you can't get this to work for you, please send email to me: dana@are.berkeley.edu or phone me at 510-642-4361 and I will be glad to help you. -- Dana From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Aug 30 10:39:24 1994 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA16503 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 1994 10:39:23 -0700 Received: from localhost by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id NAA04577; Tue, 30 Aug 1994 13:38:49 -0400 Date: 30 Aug 94 13:34:02 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Chem. Category Resistance Chart Message-ID: <940830173401_73507.555_HHB93-1@CompuServe.COM> This chart is now being referenced on labels. It provides options for PPE besides those on the label. Thanks to Charlotte Coffmann for telling me that this U.S. EPA chart is available from a source in New York. All I have to do is send them $52.00 for 100 copies! Thanks also to Steve Sutter who sent me a copy of a fax of the chart. I am now confused about how it is to be used. It starts out by saying that it is essential to know the type of solvent used in the formulation and that this is considered a trade secret. However the labels do tell the user what category of the chart to use. Then the different types of materials are ranked from high to no protection. If the chart says the material provides moderate protection, can the user employ that material? Do we have to know the length of contact to determine this? I think this chart should be made available by U.S. EPA if they are going to refer to it by label statements. In California, DPR should send this chart out to all the counties so we know what to enforce. Can we get an ASCII version in this forum? I am supposed to enforce label requirements but if the user has an alternate option for PPE that is not on the label, and I do not have the chart, then I cannot determine if that person is in compliance with the label. This obfuscates the enforcement of the label. I realize that the intent was to provide more options for the user but this is getting so complicated that the people I deal with do not really want more options, they just want to know what to do to comply. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Aug 30 16:47:34 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA26557 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 1994 16:47:33 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id QAA11162; Tue, 30 Aug 1994 16:47:27 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 16:47:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199408302347.QAA11162@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Poll WPS-EPA In your opinion, if a farmer provides WPS training for his/hers Farm Labor Contractor's field workers, does his/hers FLC lose independent contractor status? 1. Definitively 2. Quite likely 3. Unsure 4. Unlikely 5. Definitively not 6. No opinion as I do not know much about independent contractor regulations Please hit reply button, and quickly anwer this question and I will sumarize answers. The more votes the better, so please do this now. Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu Wed Aug 31 04:10:49 1994 Received: from ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.65.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id EAA05012 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 04:10:49 -0700 From: craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu Received: by ssc.msu.edu; Wed, 31 Aug 94 7:14:34 EDT Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 7:13:27 EDT Message-ID: To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: re: WPS Poll X-Incognito-SN: 221 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=1.60g ENCRYPTED=NO 6 gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wrote: | | WPS-EPA | | In your opinion, if a farmer provides WPS training for | his/hers Farm Labor | Contractor's field workers, does his/hers FLC lose | independent contractor | status? | | 1. Definitively | 2. Quite likely | 3. Unsure | 4. Unlikely | 5. Definitively not | 6. No opinion as I do not know much about independent | contractor regulations | | | Please hit reply button, and quickly anwer this question | and I will sumarize | answers. The more votes the better, so please do this | now. | | Gregorio | | | | ********************************************************** | ************* | | Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 | University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 | 733 County Center 3 e-mail | gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu | Modesto, CA 95357 | | ********************************************************** | ************** | From AWALLER@mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us Wed Aug 31 05:01:10 1994 Received: from mail.unet.umn.edu (mail.unet.umn.edu [128.101.101.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA05267 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 05:01:10 -0700 Received: from nic (nic.state.mn.us) by mail.unet.umn.edu (5.65c) id AA18697; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 07:01:08 -0500 Received: from mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us by nic (4.1/) id AA15777; Wed, 31 Aug 94 07:01:12 CDT Received: from MDA-AG/MAILQ by mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 31 Aug 94 7:01:08 CST Received: from MAILQ by MDA-AG (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 31 Aug 94 7:00:46 CST To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: "ALICE WALLER" Organization: Minnesota Dept of Agriculture Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 07:00:40 CST6CDT Subject: re: WPS Poll Return-Receipt-To: "ALICE WALLER" Priority: normal X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Message-Id: <945AFDA7D4E@mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 04:11:05 -0700 Reply-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: re: WPS Poll 6 gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wrote: | | WPS-EPA | | In your opinion, if a farmer provides WPS training for | his/hers Farm Labor | Contractor's field workers, does his/hers FLC lose | independent contractor | status? | | 1. Definitively | 2. Quite likely | 3. Unsure | 4. Unlikely | 5. Definitively not | 6. No opinion as I do not know much about independent | contractor regulations | | | Please hit reply button, and quickly anwer this question | and I will sumarize | answers. The more votes the better, so please do this | now. | | Gregorio | | | | ********************************************************** | ************* | | Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 | University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 | 733 County Center 3 e-mail | gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu | Modesto, CA 95357 | | ********************************************************** | ************** | 6 AWALLER@MDA-AG.MDA.STATE.MN.US From WHEELERW@CSRS.ESUSDA.GOV Wed Aug 31 05:06:22 1994 Received: from csrs.esusda.gov (csrs.esusda.gov [192.195.241.185]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA05336 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 05:06:22 -0700 From: WHEELERW@CSRS.ESUSDA.GOV Received: from CSRS.ESUSDA.GOV by CSRS.ESUSDA.GOV (PMDF V4.3-8 #6472) id <01HGJVVM8Y288WW2MU@CSRS.ESUSDA.GOV>; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:06:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:06:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: WPS Poll To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HGJVVMA0N68WW2MU@CSRS.ESUSDA.GOV> X-VMS-To: SMTP%"wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT 6 From nclifton@ent.umass.edu Wed Aug 31 07:56:42 1994 Received: from pobox.ucs.umass.edu (pobox.ucs.umass.edu [128.119.166.150]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA06259 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 07:56:42 -0700 Received: from titan.ucs.umass.edu by pobox.ucs.umass.edu (PMDF V4.3-8 #6523) id <01HGK1U2WCNK003RMZ@pobox.ucs.umass.edu>; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 10:56:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (nclifton@localhost) by titan.ucs.umass.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) id KAA15090 for wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 10:56:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 10:56:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Natalia P Clifton Subject: Re: WPS Poll In-reply-to: <199408302347.QAA11162@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> from "gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu" at Aug 30, 94 04:47:52 pm To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <199408311456.KAA15090@titan.ucs.umass.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-length: 47 My vote is number 6 (n.clifton, Massachusetts) From shenkm@BCC.ORST.EDU Wed Aug 31 08:17:16 1994 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA06755 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:17:16 -0700 Received: from [128.193.88.177] (Schenk-2036a-I.CORDLEY.ORST.EDU) by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05807; Wed, 31 Aug 94 08:17:14 PDT From: "Myron Shenk" Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 08:20:06 CST Message-Id: <30007.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: WPS Poll I am not sure, thus no opinion. In Oregon, there is some confusion on responsibility for training, although it appears that Oregon Department of Agriculture and OR-OSHA would hold both the producer and the Labor Contractor liable if workers were not trainned. However, most producers figure they would be the scapegoat in the end. Myron Shenk, OSU Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wed Aug 31 08:31:27 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA07198 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:31:26 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id IAA15926; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:31:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:31:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199408311531.IAA15926@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Sorry! Poll Sorry I had you hit the REPLY button, which sends your poll response to the net as Howard R. Rosenberg informs me, not to the individual. I plan to summarize your results after I get a few more responses. I have asked several attorneys to return my call and will let you know their opinions, too. Gregorio PS_ If you have not sent your POLL response, please do so. THANKS TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE RERSPNED SO FAR. *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Aug 31 09:27:55 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.37] (gia3mac27.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.37]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA08260 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 1994 09:27:52 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 09:27:54 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: message from C. Coffman Charlotte Coffman says: Just to clarify. . .the $52 for 100 copies price that Bob Roach mentioned is not just for 100 charts, it is for 100 four-page pamphlets which include the EPA Chemical Resistance Category Selection Chart. The pamphlet defines chemical resistance and discusses chemical resistance of PPE materials, how to select chemical-resistant materials, and how to use the chart. I am not saying it is a bargain; I am saying that it is available. I have about 10 extra copies and would be willing to send one as a sample if you provide me with a name and mailing address. Charlotte Coffman Cornell University From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Wed Aug 31 11:28:32 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.