From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Dec 2 09:04:33 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.102] (gia5mac22.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.102]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA12950 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:04:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199412021704.JAA12950@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:04:52 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: photonovella for pesticide training North Carolina State University has available a bilingual photonovella designed to supplement pesticide safety training of agricultural workers as required by the WPS. _Dancing with Danger/Bailando con el Peligro_ is a collaborative product of the NCSU Extension Service, the North Carolina Primary Health Care Association, Tri-County Community Health Center, the growers of Johnston County, and the Alvarez family of Michoacan, Mexico. Text, discussion questions, and an exercise in this booklet address: where pesticides may be found at work; how pesticides enter the body; possible effects of exposure; symptoms of poisoning; first aid; how to protect oneself from pesticide poisoning; and responsibility of growers' to protect workers. Multiple copies may be obtained from the Department of Agricultural Communications at North Carolina State University, Box 7603, Raleigh NC 27695-7603, phone (919) 515-3173. Robert L. McLymore, Extension Safety Specialist mclymore@eos.ncsu.edu Box 7625, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7625 phone 919-515-6789 FAX 919-515-6772 From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Dec 2 09:50:46 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.18] (gia3mac8.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.18]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA14682 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:50:43 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:50:45 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Final Plan for Streamlining EPA Registration Process I am re-sending the following message that apparently was not distributed when it was first submitted. Dana Keil Mailing List Manager Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California at Berkeley -----resent message follows -------- EPA's Registration Division has announced plans for streamlining the following projects: 1) Amendments by Notification a. Changes to the Notification Process b. Water Soluble Packaging c. Rodenticide Packaging 2) Process Improvements a. Acute toxicity reviews b. Development of computer program to use in determining precautionary labeling c. Self-certification of acute toxicity studies and standard Statements for Category III and IV products d. Expedited registration e. Label coordination For additional information concerning these issues, you may call Jeff Kempter at 703-305-5448. These issues, and associated timetables, are outlined in a memorandum dated 22 September 1994, from Stephen L. Johnson, Office Director of Registration Division. Judy Smith, Chemist Field Operations/Occupational Safety Branch 703-305-5621 From kaiser@ssnet.com Fri Dec 2 12:30:38 1994 Received: from marlin.ssnet.com (ssnet.com [165.113.8.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA20072 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 12:30:32 -0800 Received: by marlin.ssnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14196; Fri, 2 Dec 94 15:28:15 EST Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:28:11 -0500 (EST) From: Roger Kaiser To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Grower Talks seminar/costs/manuals Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I found the message on the high cost of the Grower Talks seminar quite puzzling. Why should Grower Talks (or anybody else) be "truly concerned about informing growers of WPS requirements"? That is, why should they want to do it for free? Grower Talks is a for-profit company and they should be doing this because they think that somewhere down the line, they will make a profit. I know of nobody in the U.S. who is doing these seminars for free. Many of our friends working for government, universities, state etc. think they are doing their training "for free". If the seminars were free, then the government workers would shun the free copies of the manuals and buy the manuals out of their own pockets. They don't do this because the siminars arn't free. The seminars are paid for by the tax payers instead of the workers. The salaries of the government workers are also paid by the tax payers, they arn't free. The government workers would be very unhappy if there wasn't a paycheck for them at the end of the month. The government has hired these people to give WPS seminars but they arn't free. We have been told that in CA there have been 22 train the trainer seminars and about 950 people are now trainers. It would be interesting to see who these people are. Are they lawyers, school teachers, housewives, salesclerks, gas station attendents? I would think not. I would guess that the people who take the seminar and qualify as trainers do it because they expect to make money. They do it because they will train workers who will then increase the trainers take home pay. A farm manager or owner will train workers because it is a cost of doing business. He will pay that cost because he expects a return on his investment. Maybe I live in another world. Maybe there is a groundswell of volunteers from urban America who want to learn about WPS and then go out and train farmers. I don't think so. I think people learn WPS because they are paid to do so. The State of CA seems to have done an excellent job of getting ready for WPS. Maybe this is not true in the midwest. Maybe there is such a need for training that farmers and growers will pay $545 to take the seminar. Let the grower decide if he is getting value for his money. If the manuals are free to the public, then why shouldn't Grower Talks get them for free also? You may say that this is not right because Grower Talks will make money on the deal. This is true, but it is also true that they have added value to the product. The value may be small, it may only be that somebody picked up the manuals at the Extension Office and moved them to the seminar. (I live about 20 minutes from my Ext. Off. A round trip would take 40-50 minutes. I think an hour of my time is worth $20 and thus I would be willing to pay extra to have the Manual waiting for me at the Grower Talks seminar. This is added value.) I could go on, but I think I have made my point. I work for a chemical company and make a nice salary. I work weekends, evenings and other overtime and I do not get extra pay. I go conf., meetings, and make many overnight trips for the company. I do not consider this "donated" time. For example, we also hire people to do the typing and answer the phones at the office. I am paid nearly double what these people make. However, they don't work weekends or spend overnight away from home. The trips and long hours are what I do to earn my pay. If you work for the government and you do a grower meeting at night, this is not "donated" time. It's part of being a professional. It's why you get paid $30,000 - $60,000 a year. I get upset when someone suggests that just because Grower Talks is a business they should do things for free. The workers covered by WPS are not poor migrants. There are 4.5 million people covered by WPS rules and the vast majority of them are making a good wage at a steady job. The EPA has estimated that it will take nearly $200 million to set up the program, write the new labels, and to train the people in the first year. The EPA estimates that it will take nearly $50 million each year after that. These costs will average 1-4% of a growers pesticide costs. These costs are high. Congress has decided that we will use some public money to reduce these costs for individual growers. They have not provided money to everyone who is affected by the new rules. Much of the cost will be paid by business. Business does what it does to make money. I expect they will raise prices to cover their costs. You know the rest of the story... There is nothing wrong with this system. It fact, it seems to work very well. Roger Kaiser kaiser@SSNET.COM From r-ferree@uiuc.edu Fri Dec 2 13:30:35 1994 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (root@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA21828 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:30:34 -0800 Received: from [128.174.77.38] (ferree.hort.uiuc.edu) by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA04097 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:30:05 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:30:05 -0600 Message-Id: <199412022130.AA04097@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> X-Sender: rferree@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: r-ferree@uiuc.edu (rferree) Subject: Re: Grower Talks seminar/costs/manuals A part of the latest comment from Roger Kaiser bothered me. It was as follows: "The State of CA seems to have done an excellent job of getting ready for WPS. Maybe this is not true in the midwest. Maybe there is such a need for training that farmers and growers will pay $545 to take the seminar. Let the grower decide if he is getting value for his money. If the manuals are free to the public, then why shouldn't Grower Talks get them for free also?" It bothers me that he believes the midwest has not been doing anything to prepare for WPS. I know that many meetings have been conducted in the midwest on WPS. I am in Illinois, but I am aware of meetings in my surrounding states also. The Illinois Cooperative Extension Service has held several meetings to train farmers and others affected by WPS. Our meetings have been two-fold. We conduct an overview of the WPS to be sure everyone understands the provisions, then we conduct a train-the-trainer portion. We have held many meetings and telephone conferences to educate Extension personnel. Additionally we have held several meetings specific to WPS. We have been extremely disappointed by attendance at our meetings. For example, we held a training session in Freeport, IL on November 21 and had space for 200 people but only 20 showed. We advertised it through Extension and local newspapers and also these meetings were co-sponsored by Illinois Farm Bureau. They advertised it to their constituents too. The word got out but response was minimal. We and the Illinois Department of Agriculture are extremely puzzled by the low numbers. We are not sure if people in Illinois are not yet taking this seriously or if there simply are not that many people who need train-the-trainer meetings. Admittedly, WPS has been discussed at private and commercial PAT meetings for the past 2 years. We may be catching most people there. Illinois Department of Agriculture is providing WPS training cards to workers and handlers who attend PAT meetings, sit through the training, but do not need to test and be licensed. Our PAT sessions started this week and we already have several people taking advantage of this as a way to train their people. Well you get the idea. People in the midwest are not sitting on their hands when it comes to WPS. We have spent considerable time and energy and money to work on implementation in Illinois. I admit we have a ways to go, but the ball is rolling. If someone wants to spend $545 to attend the Grower Talks seminar that is their choice. I certainly do not believe the Extension Service can reach everyone, but we are reaching many. Rhonda J. Ferree Extension Horticulturist in Pesticide Applicator Training University of Illinois From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Fri Dec 2 14:35:51 1994 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA23512 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:35:51 -0800 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id OAA25099; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:35:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:35:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199412022235.OAA25099@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Congratulations UC IPM! Pat Marer, Guadalupe Sandoval & Melanie Zavala, CONGRATULATIONS ON THE GREAT JOB YOU HAVE DONE CONDUCTING 22 PROGRAMS ATTENDED BY OVER 950 TRAINERS on the WPS! WOW! 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 ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Fri Dec 2 14:40:47 1994 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA23626 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:40:45 -0800 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.9/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id OAA27563 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:40:40 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:40:40 -0800 Message-Id: <199412022240.OAA27563@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: November training Thought you might be interested in the training effort that occurred in Washington by Washington State University and Washington State Dept. of Agriculture. We held 10 four-hour trainer courses in English with a total of 320 attendees. We held 3 four-hour trainer courses in Spanish with a total of 111 attendees. Of the 431 attendees, greater that 50% were licensed applicators wanting information about the regulation and training methods. Many, 132 attendees, opted for handler cards not certified trainer applications. We were quite disappointed in the numbers that attended. We sent out notification to all 23,000 licensed applicators, consultants, and dealers in the state (but the mailing was overlooked). We had information delivered in newsletters and local newspapers. After talking to many of the CHOIR that attended, it appears that, as usual, a lot of people are closing their eyes and hoping the regulations will go away. Others may feel they are comfortable enough with the training material and a Trainer course is overkill. Also, we did not give recertification credits in an attempt to limit large numbers of credit seekers. Unfortunately, we did not get the message and training to the masses before the January implementation date and the phone will be ringing come February when most of the pesticide applicator training faculty are already committed to recertification and prelicense training. Please keep us apprised of new training material available for Employers, Handlers, Workers, and Trainers. -------------------------------- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From Patric6548@aol.com Sun Dec 4 20:24:24 1994 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA24291 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 1994 20:24:23 -0800 From: Patric6548@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA27202; Sun, 4 Dec 1994 23:20:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 23:20:57 -0500 Message-Id: <941204232055_5837161@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: No Subject Next week the UC IPM Pesticide Education Program will complete its 1994 train-the-trainer programs for trainers of fieldworkers and pesticide handlers. Hey Patrick----does the next week referenced above mean the week of 12-5 or the week of 12-12? I could use more specifics in that I am the ag reporter for KMPH NEWSRADIO in Fresno. I report these meetings and will be glad to broadcast the meeting times and places for the Central San Joaquin Valley. Our listening area spans from Kern County to Merced and westward to the coastal range. Let me know--- ------Patrick Cavanaugh also, my fax is 209-225-0235 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Dec 4 21:38:52 1994 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA25181 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 1994 21:38:52 -0800 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.940406sam) id AAA18116; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:38:45 -0500 Date: 05 Dec 94 00:18:41 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: National Standards/Labels Message-ID: <941205051841_73507.555_HHB27-1@CompuServe.COM> I am in agreement that the standards protecting workers need to be raised across the nation. The WPS is an effort to extend the protections found on pesticide labeling. The pesticide labels are a national standard that is in effect and has been for a long time. So how are we doing with that standard? I recently attended a workshop on new spray technologies sponsored by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The object is to address the problems attendant to adopting new (and not-so-new), more efficient pesticide application systems such as ultra-low volume and air-assisted electrostatic sprayers. Many pesticides cannot be used in this way because it is a conflict with the label to apply them in less than the minimum amount of water specified on the labels. A couple of the sprayer manufacturers referred to the "California problem" that was inhibiting the marketing of their systems in this state. When asked about this they said that in other states the regulatory officials are looking at a statement such as "apply in 20 gallons of water per acre by ground" as merely a recommendation and that it is permissible to apply the material in less water. California is thinking that the labels have to be taken literally and that the above statement means that to use less than 20 gallons of water is a use in conflict with the label. My observation is that if those are the facts, we have a national standard that is not being enforced uniformly, in which case it is not really an effective standard. I do not want to stop anybody anywhere from employing a method that can cut the rates in half and reduce applicator exposure. I am committed to solving this problem as quickly as possible. But if California growers are being placed at a competitive disadvantage by lax enforcement in other states, I am concerned about that. If the WPS is not enforced in other states, that is going to put California at a further disadvantage. It was also mentioned that other countries, such as our NAFTA partners, are utilizing these new technologies. My question to the U.S. EPA is, who is right? Is California being too strict or are other states being too loose in their label interpretations? I look to the U.S. EPA to be involved with this issue in the near future. Their involvement is vital to the resolution of the ULV/pesticide label problem. My question to subscribers in other states is, what is going on there? Are low-volume and ULV sprayers used and are labels a problem? Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Dec 5 12:26:56 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.102] (gia5mac22.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.102]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA12725 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 12:26:54 -0800 Message-Id: <199412052026.MAA12725@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 12:27:15 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: gloves, sweat, and dermatitis again Received from Peter Elias-- On November 2, Judy Smith wrote: >The Agency eliminated the use of cotton glove/cotton liners for a >number of excellent reasons, and these were based on scientific data >and observations concerning work habits . . . Judy, Thank you for your response to my recommendations on how workers wearing protective gloves may reduce their chances of getting dermatitis. Although I have been out of the country and some time has passed, I would like to clarify the main point, since you seem to have missed it. The cotton liners would be used _under impermeable gloves_ and changed at least once each day (say at lunch time). If you are concerned about the workers' welfare, please re-review my complete list of suggestions, which include using an astringent powder under the liners during work and caring for the hands in the evening. In more than 20 years of specialized research, I have developed several new ways of both protecting and fortifying the epidermal permeability barrier. Please feel free to call if you would like to discuss my suggestions further. Peter M. Elias, M.D. Chief, Dermatology Service, VA Medical Center, San Francisco Professor and Vice-Chairman, UCSF Dept. of Dermatology 415/750-2091 From watsong@nr.infi.net Tue Dec 6 12:12:12 1994 Received: from infi.net (larry.infi.net [198.22.1.107]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA07537 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 12:12:12 -0800 Received: from watsong by infi.net with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #13) id m0rF6G2-0008VcC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 15:13 EST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 6 Dec 94 15:13 EST X-Sender: watsong@nr.infi.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: watsong@nr.infi.net (Greg Watson) Subject: Re: National Standards/Labels X-Mailer: In response to the question concerning the lack of ULV directions for use on labeling: Current policy in the residue chemistry area (Tolerance Support, Chemistry Branch or CBTS) of EPA requires development, submission, and approval of field residue data to support directions for use that call for ULV application. According to this policy, field residue data that support "normal" carrier volume will not support label claims including ULV application. Therefore, it appears that the CA position as you state it is in line with current Agency policy. Best Regards, Greg Watson Regulatory Manager Ciba Crop Protection > >"I recently attended a workshop on new spray technologies >sponsored by the California Department of Pesticide >Regulation. The object is to address the problems >attendant to adopting new (and not-so-new), more efficient >pesticide application systems such as ultra-low volume and >air-assisted electrostatic sprayers. Many pesticides >cannot be used in this way because it is a conflict with >the label to apply them in less than the minimum amount of >water specified on the labels. > >A couple of the sprayer manufacturers referred to the >"California problem" that was inhibiting the marketing of >their systems in this state. When asked about this they >said that in other states the regulatory officials are >looking at a statement such as "apply in 20 gallons of >water per acre by ground" as merely a recommendation and >that it is permissible to apply the material in less >water. California is thinking that the labels have to be >taken literally and that the above statement means that to >use less than 20 gallons of water is a use in conflict >with the label." >> >Robert A. Roach >73507.555@compuserve.com > > Greg Watson, Regulatory Manager Ciba Crop Protection watsong@nr.infi.net From CBeytes@aol.com Tue Dec 6 14:35:21 1994 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA11872 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 14:35:21 -0800 From: CBeytes@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA20843; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 17:31:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 17:31:54 -0500 Message-Id: <941206173153_7321679@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Manual sources - Thanks! Thanks to all WPS forum members who suggested sources for WPS manuals for our GrowerExpo seminar. And even the bit of controversy I stirred up made the whole process more interesting. I respect the views of everyone, and admit that the combination of education, public service, publications required by the federal govt., and the free enterprise system is bound to cause some differences of opinion. That's one of the great things about this forum. Thanks again! Chris Beytes, managing editor GrowerTalks From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Dec 6 19:57:20 1994 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA19246 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 19:57:19 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.940406sam) id WAA19174; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 22:56:44 -0500 Date: 06 Dec 94 22:53:15 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Low turnout in Illinois Message-ID: <941207035315_73507.555_HHB115-1@CompuServe.COM> Rhonda J. Ferree, Extension Horticulturist in Pesticide Applicator Training at the University of Illinois expressed puzzlement in a recent posting: > Additionally we have held several meetings specific to WPS. >We have been extremely disappointed by attendance at our meetings. >For example, we held a training session in Freeport, IL on November >21 and had space for 200 people but only 20 showed. We advertised it >through Extension and local newspapers and also these meetings were >co-sponsored by Illinois Farm Bureau. They advertised it to their >constituents too. The word got out but response was minimal. > > We and the Illinois Department of Agriculture are extremely >puzzled by the low numbers. We are not sure if people in Illinois >are not yet taking this seriously or if there simply are not that >many people who need train-the-trainer meetings. I would ask about the enforcement system in Illinois. How many people in the state are devoted to the enforcement of pesticide laws and regulations? When the regulated public ignores new requirements I think it is necessary to look at enforcement. It seems like the education system is geared up but too few are attending. Is it possible that WPS is going to be largely ignored in Illinois and other parts of the country? The WPS is in many respects patterned after the California program but it is missing one crucial element of that successful paradigm: enforcement. It also lacks enforceability in many ways. It is not enough to just put a law on the books. There must be a means of gaining compliance. A person in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation recently told me that the state has about 900 people involved in enforcement. That seemed a little high to me, I thought it was about 400. I am curious to know how many people in other big ag states are out in the field doing enforcement work. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserv.com From STEW@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Wed Dec 7 08:11:20 1994 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA03788 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 08:11:19 -0800 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HKCYQLDD9091W9X5@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Wed, 07 Dec 1994 11:10:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 11:10:15 -0500 (EST) From: "SWANSON, STEWART" Subject: Re: Low turnout in Illinois To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HKCYQLDD9291W9X5@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bob Roach talked about 400 pesticide enforcement people in California, others said up to 900. I would like to know the accurate figure. Here in Florida, it is my understanding that The Dept.of Agriculture adn Consumer Services has somewhere between 9 and 13 inspectors for enforceing all of th pesticide/wps laws. Of course, there are others involved (administration, etc.). Stewart Swanson Veg. Crops Agent Univ.Fla. From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Wed Dec 7 09:35:04 1994 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA07120 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:35:03 -0800 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.9/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id JAA12196 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:35:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:35:01 -0800 Message-Id: <199412071735.JAA12196@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: Enforcement >The WPS is in many respects patterned after the California program but >it is missing one crucial element of that successful paradigm: >enforcement. It also lacks enforceability in many ways. It is not >enough to just put a law on the books. There must be a means of >gaining compliance. A person in the California Department of >Pesticide Regulation recently told me that the state has about 900 >people involved in enforcement. That seemed a little high to me, I >thought it was about 400. I am curious to know how many people in >other big ag states are out in the field doing enforcement work. > In response to your question, WPS will be enforced by two different regulatory agencies within Washington. The Washington State Dept. of Agriculture will take the lead in enforcing training, reentry, and label specific requirements. The Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries will take the lead in enforcing decontamination site requirements, PPE, and notification. That is not to say they are mutually exclusive. If one or the other goes out on a complaint, they will look at compliance with the entire regulation. The enforcement force in Washington is less than 75, counting both agencies. (The number is off the top of my head, but my guess is that it is pretty close or an over estimate) -------------------------------- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Wed Dec 7 09:55:01 1994 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA07928 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:55:01 -0800 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.9/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id JAA13613 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:54:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:54:59 -0800 Message-Id: <199412071754.JAA13613@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: clarification I would like to further clarify my GUESS as to the numbers of people in Washington State that could be involved in WSP enforcement. The Washington State Department of Agriculture has 12 field investigators, with supervisory support. The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries has a work force that includes approximately 70 inspectors and 40 hygenist, but not all would target agriculture. -------------------------------- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From r-ferree@uiuc.edu Thu Dec 8 08:20:52 1994 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (root@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA06899 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 1994 08:20:51 -0800 Received: from [128.174.77.38] (ferree.hort.uiuc.edu) by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA06514 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 8 Dec 1994 10:20:30 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 10:20:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199412081620.AA06514@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> X-Sender: rferree@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: r-ferree@uiuc.edu (rferree) Subject: Re: Low turnout in Illinois In answer the question Bob Roach recently asked concerning how many people in other big ag states are out in the field doing enforcement work. In Illinois there are 18 (eighteen) Illinois Department of Agriculture field inspectors. Of the 18, 9 work the Northeast portion of the state which is Chicago and it's suburbs where mostly urban concerns are addressed. For reference purposes, there were 17,000 private applicators certified in 1993. We are on a 3 year retesting cycle. Add the sizable number of farmers who apply only general use products requiring no license and the commercial applicators and it is obvious that there is a considerable number of people affected by WPS in Illinois. Is it possible that WPS is going to be largely ignored in Illinois and other parts of the country? I don't have a good answer for that, but it certainly will happen to some extent. We, however, as an educational institution must persevere to train them otherwise. Rhonda J. Ferree, Extension Horticulturist in Pesticide Applicator >Training at the University of Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda J. Ferree Extension Horticulturist in Pesticide Applicator Training University of Illinois Department of Horticulture 1031 Plant Sciences Lab 1201 S. Dorner Dr. Urbana, IL 61801 Voice: (217) 244-4397 Fax: (217)244-3469 ---------------------------------------------- From 75222.2562@compuserve.com Thu Dec 8 22:06:01 1994 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA24671 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 1994 22:05:56 -0800 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.940406sam) id BAA14433; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 01:05:24 -0500 Date: 09 Dec 94 01:03:37 EST From: Doug Edwards <75222.2562@compuserve.com> To: Subject: California enforcement & PR 93-7 Message-ID: <941209060336_75222.2562_GHI76-1@CompuServe.COM> With regard to Bob Roach's talk about the number of enforcement people in California, here are some "real" numbers. Looking at the summary of inspection activities for fiscal year 92-93, California counties put in 532,711 certified work hours into pesticide enforcement. Figuring 2000 hours per person/year that works out to about 266 PY. Since we do work other that PUE it can be said that those hours are probably spread out among about 400 persons. This does not count the state people involved in the Department of Pesticide Regulation. Here in Fresno County we put in about 22 PY in PUE involving about 45 people. This is only certified hours by licensed personnel. It does not include clerical support. All this must be considered in light of the intensity of agriculture and the number of growers and employees involved. Here in Fresno County we have about 7,500 growers, 250 pest control operators (100) pilots, 400 advisors and about 300 labor contractors (only God knows how many field workers). You have to look at degree of enforcement in per capita terms. I may not have more inspectors/grower than some states with a small number of people in the field. In less complex ag. systems, it may be possible to have an effective enforcement program with fewer people. However, the perception of California growers and others is that we do have much more intense enforcement program, and they will bear an unfair burden resulting from WPS. (how fast do you drive when there are no cops around???) Time will tell. On another issue... A while back I posted a request for an ASCII copy of EPA PR notice 93-7. There were a few nice comments about being careful about the notice as the label was always the final work. That being understood I would still like a copy of the notice posted. It will be a valuable tool to use as a quick reference. How about it, Kay? Take care, Douglas Edwards Deputy Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer Fresno County, California From dbreth@cce.cornell.edu Fri Dec 9 05:37:58 1994 Received: from cce.cornell.edu (EMPIRE.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA28517 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 05:37:56 -0800 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0rG5Xp-0003V3C; Fri, 9 Dec 94 08:39 EST Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 08:34:13 -0500 (EST) From: Deborah Breth Subject: WPS To: Ron_Gardner@cce.cornell.edu cc: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Ron, Have you heard any rumors about dropping the WPS from EPA. What is the legal status, and should we be gearing up for more training in Feb. or March? Keep me informed. I have not heard anything about dropping WPS on the WPS bulletin board. Thanks, Deborah Breth From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Fri Dec 9 08:25:06 1994 Received: from hinc.hinc.hawaii.gov (hinc.hinc.Hawaii.Gov [166.122.246.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA00342 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 08:25:04 -0800 Received: by hinc.hawaii.gov (5.0/SMI-4.1) id AA19369; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 06:19:29 -1000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 06:19:29 -1000 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" To: wps forum Subject: Posting requirements for Vapam Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 1115 We've had a number of questions regarding the posting requirements for Vapam (EPA Reg. No. 10182-150), and I would like to share the info with the forum. In reviewing the product's specimen label, we found the following: Instead of the standard WPS sign, the Vapam label requires that the signs bear the skull and crossbones and state: (1) "DANGER/PELIGRO," (2) Area under fumigation, DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE," (3) The date and time of fumigation, (4) VAPAM Fumigant in use," and (5) name, address, and telephone number of the applicator. Other requirements such as the size of the sign, legibility, and timing remain the same. As always, it is prudent to check the label directions *in all cases* to be aware of all requirements, especially those deviating from the norm. To anyone from Zeneca Ag Products tuned in, will you be manufacturing any of these "special" signs? On a different note, to Steve Sutter: A belated thanks for the info. Our WPS medical provider training is scheduled for April 6 and 7. I'll be sure to send you a brochure. Gerald Kinro Hawaii Department of Agriculture From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Dec 9 10:51:17 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.89] (gia5mac9.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.89]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA03874 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:51:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199412091851.KAA03874@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:51:36 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Response to question from Deborah Breth >Ron, >Have you heard any rumors about dropping the WPS from EPA? Deborah, Ron Who? And have you seen or heard any indication that raises this question? Before the election, I had received copy of the NASDA 1995 Farm Bill Proposal, which contained a little section concluding with a reference to potential legislation to refine, not scrap, the WPS. The last of four paragraphs (p. 25 of the document) said: "Unless resolved by the Agency beforehand, NASDA believes that the 1995 Farm Bill must address the serious flaws as outlined in the July 8, 1994 NASDA et. al. rulemaking petition submitted to EPA. While the program is solely a regulatory program with no statutory basis, the Farm Bill should legislatively correct the problems with the regulation." While this stance may have been modified in wake of the election results, all I hear is that EPA is working extremely hard to with NASDA to resolve the issues in the petition. Howard Rosenberg From sgrower1@rain.org Fri Dec 9 12:45:59 1994 Received: from coyote.rain.org (sgrower1@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA06550 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 12:45:58 -0800 Received: by coyote.rain.org(4.1/SMI-RAIN) with id AA10294 for wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU on Fri, 9 Dec 94 12:42:16 PST Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 12:42:15 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Soderman To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Marathon In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Attn California growers, Marathon, the granular form of imidacloprid, was reported to have recieved it's California Registration as of thur 12/8/94. I just thought some of you on this would like to know. Phil Soderman sgrower1@rain.org From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Dec 9 13:26:35 1994 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA07601 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 13:26:34 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 09 Dec 1994 16:11:43 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 09 Dec 1994 16:22:35 -0500 To: WPS-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: PR 93-7 On WPS-forum? In response to the recent inquiry from Douglas Edwards from Fresno County, CA for the WPS PR 93-7, and perhaps additionally PR 93-11, to be placed on WPS-Forum, I am not aware of a computer version ever made available to the U.S. EPA Regions or States. PR Notices are usually transmitted by hard copy to prevent any subsequent alteration of the Notice. The main target of this information are pesticide registrants, State enforcement and EPA Regions. I do not quite understand the need for a computer version, other than easier accessibility. It seems as if most of our requests for electronic versions are derived from California only! Any State may contact their Regional EPA Pesticides Office or State Lead Agency for pesticides for a hard copy if desired. In the quest for an electronic version, requestors may contact the U.S. EPA Communications Branch at 703/305-5017, Registration Division at 703/305-5447, or the Certification, Training and Occupational Safety Branch at 703/305-7371,....or call Kay in Region 9 (ha! ha!) Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago) From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Dec 9 13:28:21 1994 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA07684 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 13:28:20 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 09 Dec 1994 16:13:29 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 09 Dec 1994 16:23:31 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Delay? In response to an inquiry about another possible delay in the implementation of WPS, the U.S. EPA never desired a delay, either for 1994 or now. The Agency is preparing for full implementation of the WPS after January 1, 1995 and the States should do likewise. In response to concerns expressed to the Agency from the Farmworker Justice Fund and NASDA, the Agency is pressing ahead as fast as legally and practically possible with several proposed Rule changes and exceptions. These include: 1. Training Provisions - proposal of 0 day grace period for training of employees and a reduction in the retraining interval from 5 to 3 years. 2. Irrigation Exception - proposal of national exception for low contact irrigation tasks (maximum of 8 hrs. in treated area in every 24 hrs., except for double warning pesticides) 3. Reduction in REI for Low Toxicity Pesticides - proposal of national exception to shorten REI from 12 to 4 hrs for 90 low toxicity pesticides in tox. cat. 3 and 4 4. Crop Advisors - discussion is focused on perhaps a reduction of some WPS provisions for certified and independent crop advisors through a Rule amendment 5. Low Contact Activities - the Agency is currently trying to define what constitutes a "low contact" activity and the reduced requirements of early-entry under these particular activities. Concerning another delay, the Agency does not expect another political lobby by NASDA in the remainder of 1994 and not immediately in 1995 for a Congressional delay of implementation. If there is any political activity, it is not expected until February at the earliest, as the new Congress becomes settled-in. Very soon, a national press release is expected from the EPA relating to the January 1, 1995 implementation. This will be followed by a much larger press package relating to all the proposed Rule changes and proposed exceptions. Donald Baumgartner Worker Protection Specialist U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago) From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Dec 11 10:38:54 1994 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA06330 for ; Sun, 11 Dec 1994 10:38:54 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.940406sam) id NAA23357; Sun, 11 Dec 1994 13:38:23 -0500 Date: 11 Dec 94 13:37:14 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Enforcement hours in Ca. Message-ID: <941211183713_73507.555_HHB62-1@CompuServe.COM> Estimates of the number of people involved in pesticide use enforcement in the state vary widely. A much better measure of enforcement effort is the amount of time spent in PUE since many county personnel have other duties besides PUE. The fiscal year 1992/1993 Report #5 summary indicates that about 260 person years were expended by county personnel. These are only the certificated hours, meaning inspectors who have a state license in pesticide use enforcement, spent solely in enforcement. It does not include non-certificated hours such as those of agricultural aides or any hours for support personnel or administration. Nor does it include any time spent by state personnel. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Mon Dec 12 11:57:10 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA01233 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:57:09 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HKK66LFS2O8X4NFV@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 12 Dec 1994 14:54:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HKK61QMN808Y989E@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 12 Dec 1994 14:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 12 Dec 1994 14:49:54 EST MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Mon, 12 Dec 1994 14:49:54 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 13:47:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: RE: gloves, sweat, and dermatitis again To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HKK622T8728Y989E@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, 12 Dec 1994 14:49:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;45944121214991/2131529@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Dr. Elias: Thank you for your response. I encourage you to put a discussion of your recommendations concerning means of avoiding or minimizing skin irritations on WPS-forum. One major concern in agriculture is the failure to change or replace personal protective equipment as frequently as needed. This is especially true for gloves and glove liners. In studies submitted to the Agency, we have observed that wearing protective gloves may not provide as much protection as one would expect, and this is due to how workers don their (contaminated) gloves across the workday. In a number of agricultural facilities, facilities that were making a strong effort to comply, I've observed a marked tendency to keep and reuse gloves that should have been discarded after a day of use and never reworn again. If this happens with gloves, the same is to be expected with glove liners. (Also, keep in mind that agricultural work conditions are far less controlled than those of industry.) Also, depending upon the solvents present in a pesticide, it may be difficult to decontaminate cotton materials. Pesticides tend to be strongly held within the lumen of cotton fibers (the degree of decontamination possible will be influenced by the pesticide type and carrier solvents present). Now, visualize a field situation where gloves have been repeatedly used, breakthrough has occurred, and glove liners are being used. This scenario sets up conditions where the liner may actually promote pesticide movement toward the skin. Field compliance with respect to equipment replacement and decontamination is NOT ideal; and, for this reason, glove liners could place workers at higher risk to exposure to pesticides. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Dec 12 13:38:37 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.89] (gia5mac9.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.89]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA04220 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 1994 13:38:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199412122138.NAA04220@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 13:38:56 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: understanding response to request for PR 93-7 >I do not quite understand the need for a computer version, other than easier >accessibility. Don, Isn't that reason enough? What I don't understand is how transmitting the notice in hard copy prevents anybody from using modern print or computer technology to generate an altered form of the Notice. And why that is even worth worrying about. If there is to be concern over bogus documents, it might better focus on the worker Training Verification Card. Howard From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Dec 13 07:23:26 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA20711 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 07:23:26 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id HAA21764; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 07:23:25 -0800 Message-Id: <199412131523.HAA21764@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3906; Tue, 13 Dec 94 07:24:16 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 6734; Tue, 13 Dec 94 07:24:16 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7983; Tue, 13 Dec 94 10:23:09 EST Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 10:21:35 EST From: Al French Subject: Electronic info To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On 12/9/94, Don Baumgartner said: < I am not aware of a computer version ever made available to the U.S. EPA > < Regions or States. PR Notices are usually transmitted by hard copy to > < prevent any subsequent alteration of the Notice. > Don, I can't understand why there would be concern about alteration of electronic copies of PR notices when EPA makes its regulations available in electronic form. It seems to me that regulations would have a greater need for security than notices. < I do not quite understand the need for a computer version, other than > < easier accessibility. > Howard is right; easier accessibility is reason enough. However, it would also help some of us who are not as familiar with this information as EPA officials to be more accurate. I understand that the Canadian equivalents of the _Federal Register_ and _Congressional Record_ are now published *only* in electronic form. They believe it saves trees, helps the environment, and relieves taxpayers. < It seems as if most of our requests for electronic versions are derived > < from California only! > Well, here's one from D.C.. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu 9/3 Gators 77 New Mexico State 21 9/10 Gators 73 Kentucky 7 9/17 Gators 31 Tennessee 0 10/1 Gators 38 Ole Miss 14 10/8 Gators 42 LSU 18 10/15 Gators 33 Auburn 35 10/29 Gators 52 Georgia 14 11/05 Gators 55 So. Miss 17 11/12 Gators 48 S. Carolina 17 11/19 Gators 24 Vanderbilt 7 11/26 Gators 31 Florida State 31 12/3 Gators 24 Alabama 23 Gators are SEC champs...again! From IPMPBG@uckac.edu Tue Dec 13 08:44:38 1994 Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [136.161.128.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA22177 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:44:06 -0800 Received: from uckac.edu by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA06112 for wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU; Tue, 13 Dec 94 11:43:47 -0500 Received: from UCKAC/SpoolDir by uckac.edu (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 13 Dec 94 8:41:31 PDT Received: from SpoolDir by UCKAC (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 13 Dec 94 8:41:17 PDT From: "Peter B. Goodell" Organization: UC Kearney Agricultural Center To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, Multiple recipients of list , Al French Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:41:15 PDT Subject: Re: Electronic info Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-Id: <77B50176DA@uckac.edu> In response to Al French's message of 12/13/94 about electronic access to public notices: Does anyone know how to access Federal Register.. or abstracts of Fed Register? Are these available from some public or commercial source? Pete Goodell IPM Advisor - Kearney Ag Center - Univ Calif pbgoodell@uckac.edu From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Tue Dec 13 10:30:58 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA25541 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 10:30:57 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 10:10:02 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:17:21 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: There have been a number of recent postings about the level of pesticide enforcement in California c There have been a number of recent postings about the level of pesticide enforcement in California compared to other states. I would like to clarify the California effort if I can. The actual field level pesticide enforcement is conducted by the county Department of Agriculture under the direction of the county agricultural commissioner. This is one of several activities done by the county commissioner's office. The county operates under the general direction of the State and enforces State regulations. The counties report their activities to the State on a series of report forms numbered 1-10. Pesticide enforcement is "report # 5". The latest available year is 92/93 FY. 1776 hours is used as the net work year (net hours are reported). The figures show about 300 work years of direct field activities related to pesticide enforcement. When other support activities are added the figure is about 375 work years. These figures do not include either field or other activities, such as registration, conducted by the State Department of Pesticide Regulation. These figures also do not consider that many of these trained and certificated people do not charge all of their time to PUE but are in the field doing other activities and are available to "change hats" at a moments notice (the 900 figure may more closely reflect the total number of trained people present in the field). The annual summary of county activities is a public record that is available from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. It contains a breakdown of the kinds of inspections conducted and violation rates. I hope this helps to clear the air on this subject RoyR DPR From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Dec 13 12:08:26 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA28870 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:08:26 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id MAA21030; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:08:25 -0800 Message-Id: <199412132008.MAA21030@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4148; Tue, 13 Dec 94 12:09:15 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 3738; Tue, 13 Dec 94 12:09:15 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 9990; Tue, 13 Dec 94 15:07:58 EST Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 15:05:27 EST From: Al French Subject: Electronic info To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On December 13, 1994, Peter Goodell asked: < Does anyone know how to access the Federal Register.. or abstracts of Fed > < Register? Are these available from some public or commercial source? > Federal Register Service is available on WAIS or dial-in for $375 per year. You can log in online at 202/512-1661 (Login: wais, second login: newuser -- all lower case). For information call 202/512-1530 or send E-mail to help@eids05.eids.gpo.gov. Federal Register finding aids are available online at no charge (except toll) at 202/275-0920. The Government Printing Office BBS (202/512-1387) holds many FedReg publications. A GPO account number is required as password and the charge is based on the size of the file. There is a commercial source for Federal Register documents that is described on many Gophers but I am unfamiliar with their pricing. For their advertisement, try looking under U. S. Government and then "Federal Register" or "Other Sources of Government Info." EPA Pesticide Special Review and Reregistration Information System BBS (703/308-7224) has a great deal of pesticide information (but nothing on the WPS). That number is local to D.C. and northern Virginia. Note to Doug Edwards: PR93-6 and PR93-8 are posted here, but not PR93-7; sorry! The Department of Labor's BBS is 202/219-4784. It holds a lot of OSHA stuff and some basic farm labor information--but not regulations. The Library of Congress Gopher has copies available to the public of some engrossed bills. Actually, it has all bills and published committee reports, but restricts access to congressional offices. The House and Senate Gophers have some bills and reports available--look them up by relevant committee. The House Speaker-elect has said that electronic copies of all bills and reports will soon become publicly available at the time they are filed. Don't forget to check the archives of WPS-FORUM. They hold the WPS regulations (with explanatory portion), USDA comment, public comment, How To Comply Manual, and more. Unfortunately, they do not hold EPA's interpretive guidances, but Howard is working on that. To get a summary of the WPS-FORUM archives, send the message: "index WPS- Forum" to listproc@are.berkeley.edu. Then, to obtain one or more of the files, send one or many messages, each on its own line, to ListProc with the message: "get WPS-Forum (insert filename)" (leave out the quotes and parentheses and don't send it to WPS-FORUM). BTW Howard, maybe it would be a good idea to post to the group the index of the WPS-FORUM archives every month or so. Others can probably add to this list. Please do. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Tue Dec 13 14:28:14 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA03447 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:28:12 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:26:43 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:26:03 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Subject: Regarding a recent posting on the special posting requirements for vapam Regarding a recent posting on the special posting requirements for vapam Vapam is not the only chemical that requires this special posting sign format. Methyl bromide/chloropicrin and perhaps all fumigants require it. This is described in "supplements" to EPA PR Notice 93-7. The labeling specifically says to use this sign instead of the sign specified in regulation. I think that it would have been nice if this information would have been included in the standard. I didn't learn of this sign until recently. While on the subject of signs, There is also a 1987 PR notice on chemigation that is different yet. It uses a "stop sign symbol" and different wording, but only in English. My understand is that this doesn't replace the "hand and face" but must be used with it (if both apply). This is because they serve different purposes. This sign isn't mentioned in the standard either. RoyR From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Wed Dec 14 06:22:18 1994 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA15926 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 06:22:17 -0800 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HKMMULS4C68ZEZ7W@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:21:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:21:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Regarding a recent posting on the special posting To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HKMMULS4C88ZEZ7W@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The special field posting signs for fumigants and for chemigation with Tox Category 1 products are required under EPA's fumigant label improvement program and chemigation regulations which predate the WPS. The label for such products informs the user when these signs must be used and if they must be used in addition to the WPS field posting sign in the case of chemigation. From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Wed Dec 14 08:29:09 1994 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA17458 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 08:29:08 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 30237; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 11:21:52 +500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 11:21:51 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <00988ECD.5BC07880.30237@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: RE: Regarding a recent posting on the special posting Re: signs Many fumigants already contained a requirement for skull and crossbones before WPS went into effect. It is my understanding that this sign was retained when WPS was developed for several reasons. One, since these signs were already in use this would not disrupt labeling for fumigants. But, secondly they wanted to communicate that no one can enter a fumigated area for any reason unlike under some provisions of reentry in the WPS. This information on fumigant signs was retained as label specific information rather than including it in the regulation. About the stop sign for chemigation. My understanding is that this sign is posted for the public not for employees. It is meant to be used at perimeters where irrigation water abutts to rights-of-way, schools etc. to warn the public. It is used for some Tox. I category products. Again, this is label specific information found under chemigation on labels. The ball has been dropped about communicating these issues. I was unaware of these for a long time. When growers buy product with these label requirements they have brought them to our attention. I wish EPA had told us about these as well although they were not directly in the WPS. From watsong@nr.infi.net Wed Dec 14 09:17:58 1994 Received: from infi.net (larry.infi.net [198.22.1.107]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA18398 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:17:56 -0800 Received: from watsong by infi.net with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #13) id m0rHxLY-0008XyC; Wed, 14 Dec 94 12:18 EST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 12:18 EST X-Sender: watsong@nr.infi.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: watsong@nr.infi.net (Greg Watson) Subject: Re: Electronic info X-Mailer: >Pete Goodell recently asked the question: "In response to Al French's message of 12/13/94 about electronic >access to public notices: > Does anyone know how to access Federal Register.. or abstracts of Fed >Register? Are these available from some public or commercial source?" > There is a listserver that is being run as a pilot currently that allows you to automatically receive items involving pesticides that appear in the Federal Register (tolerance notifications, use deletions, proposed rules, etc). I believe that the list's owner is: richards.john@epamail.epa.gov , while the listserver is: listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov . Within this listserver are a number of other lists in this network (for example, EPA-MEETINGS provides a list of all meeting notices). Hope this helps! A final note: PR Notices that do not appear in the Federal Register are not currently available via this network. Regards, Greg Watson Ciba Crop Protection Regulatory Affairs > Greg Watson, Regulatory Manager Ciba Crop Protection watsong@nr.infi.net From 75534.736@compuserve.com Wed Dec 14 12:40:49 1994 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA23980 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:40:48 -0800 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.940406sam) id PAA04334; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:40:16 -0500 Date: 14 Dec 94 15:37:08 EST From: Kurt Becker <75534.736@compuserve.com> To: wps Subject: EPA Press Release, Per Donald Baumgartener Message-ID: <941214203707_75534.736_GHJ86-2@CompuServe.COM> Donald Wrote: "Concerning another delay, the Agency does not expect another political lobby by NASDA in the remainder of 1994 and not immediately in 1995 for a Congressional delay of implementation. If there is any political activity, it is not expected until February at the earliest, as the new Congress becomes settled-in. Very soon, a national press release is expected from the EPA relating to the January 1, 1995 implementation. This will be followed by a much larger press package relating to all the proposed Rule changes and proposed exceptions" In light of the recent flurry of comments on electronic publishing of press releases, can we expect to see this press release on the forum? Kurt Becker National Equipment Sales Manager The Dramm Corporation From ray@acpa.org Thu Dec 15 11:37:31 1994 Received: from wposmtp.acpa.org (acpa.org [204.4.34.35]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA18530 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:36:54 -0800 Received: from MAIN-Message_Server by wposmtp.acpa.org with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:35:58 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:36:19 -0500 From: ray@acpa.org To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Federal Register; PR Notices; WPS Delay Federal Register access Others have given bits and pieces of this information. I'll share my experience. Goverment Printing Office now offers Federal Register access on-line via a service called GPO Access. Cost is $375/year (cheaper than paper which now costs $494/year), or $200 for 6 months, or $35 for one month to try it out. You connect by direct dial (202-512-1661, you pay long distance charges) or telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov. You can subscribe by logging in first time as "newuser" (no password required), but GPO discourages sending credit card info over internet. Other government documents are available so, each with their separate subscription fee: Congressional Record, congressional bills, etc. Separate WAIS software (available from GPO or elsewhere) is needed for full access to graphics files, but not for text files. Federal Register from 1/1/94 is available and searchable. Text is posted as of 6:00 a.m. Eastern time on the date of publication. These details are published on page II of each daily Federal Register issue. At Federal Depository Libraries, the GPA Access service is available to the public for free. I have been reasonably satisfied with the service in spite of some bureaucratic problems in extending my subscription. I haven't yet mastered the basics of searching on the WAIS system, but need to spend more time at it. It is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than the commercial services (e.g., Legi-Slate) that have offered electronic Federal Register access for years, though they have years prior to 1994. BETTER YET! EPA offers categories of environment-related Federal Register articles via list server/e-mail on the date of publication, to anyone, at no charge. The categories include Pesticides, Table of Contents, Endangered Species, etc. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe epa-pest yourfirstname yourlastname" (message contents, not subject line, no quote marks) to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. You will receive in reply a message with full instructions, detailing the various lists you can subscribe to. An EPA-press list (press releases) is not mentioned in the response, but you request it in the same manner. I get an average of a dozen or so Federal Register articles every day via internet E-mail through this route, full text. Very long articles are broken up into two or more e-mail messages if necessary (64K is the message limit). It is so thorough that I have taken my name off the routing slip for the paper copy delivered to our office. PR Notices The Labeling Unit within Registration Support Branch, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs has put all active PR Notices in computer files, along with other policy memos, manuals, etc. for handling labels in a series of cross-referenced directories on OPP's internal computer network. I am working closely with Steve Morrill who heads the Labeling Unit to make this same body of information available to industry and others outside the Agency. As soon as I can get hold of it, I'll make any PR Notice or other document you want available via the WPS-Forum. EPA's Office of General Counsel has its finger in this matter now, so I can't predict a date of availability. I'll pursue a Freedom-of-Information request if things get stalled. WPS Delay A letter from NASDA to go to Congressmen Boehner and Roberts and Senator Cochran on 12/19/94 will ask Congress to delay WPS implementation once again until (a) EPA resolves the various concerns raised in the July NASDA petition to the Agency and (b) Congress specifically gives the green light. The letter will be made available to the WPS-Forum on the 19th. NASDA is quite confident of the votes and political clout to accomplish this, and thinks EPA agress with that assessment (though not with the action). Ray S. McAllister Director of Regulatory Affairs American Crop Protection Association voice: 202-872-3874 e-mail: ray@acpa.org From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Fri Dec 16 07:32:50 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA07291 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 07:32:49 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HKPI5TH96O8X7QGI@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:31:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HKPI1IRRN48Y9BAK@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:28:04 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:25:23 EST MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:25:23 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:13:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: RE: EPA Press Release, Per Donald Baumgartener To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HKPI1JVF468Y9BAK@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: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:23:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;32520161214991/2156782@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Kurt: In regard to your question concerning press releases/documents from EPA being made available on WPS-FORUM, this issue has been discussed in regard to the listing of exceptions, etc., provided by Don Baumgartner (Region 5). The Certification, Training and Occupational Safety Branch plans to make each document available to FORUM subscribers as soon as we are appraised of publication dates by the Federal Register. Judy Smith C,T, & OS Branch U.S. EPA 703-305-5621 From DCRESS@oz.oznet.ksu.edu Mon Dec 19 11:01:14 1994 Received: from grunt.ksu.ksu.edu (root@grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA01769 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 11:01:12 -0800 Received: from oz.oznet.ksu.edu by grunt.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.8/1.34) id JAA07101; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:44:09 -0600 Received: from OZ/SpoolDir by oz.oznet.ksu.edu (Mercury 1.13); Mon, 19 Dec 94 9:44:11 CST6CDT Received: from SpoolDir by OZ (Mercury 1.13); Mon, 19 Dec 94 9:43:39 CST6CDT From: "DONALD CRESS" Organization: KSU ESARP and AG To: "Peter B. Goodell" , wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:43:37 CST6CDT Subject: Re: Electronic info CC: tbroscoe@ceris.purdue.edu X-Confirm-Reading-To: "DONALD CRESS" X-pmrqc: 1 Return-receipt-to: "DONALD CRESS" Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.2 (pr2) Message-ID: <12205565B8C@oz.oznet.ksu.edu> > Date sent: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:45:00 -0800 > Send reply to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU > From: "Peter B. Goodell" > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Electronic info > In response to Al French's message of 12/13/94 about electronic > access to public notices: > Does anyone know how to access Federal Register.. or abstracts of Fed > Register? Are these available from some public or commercial source? ************************* Peter: You can subscribe to the CERIS-Net which is the front end of the National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) and get the Federal Register on a daily basis included in the subscription fee. Contact Ted Broscoe at *** tbroscoe@ceris.purdue.edu *** for additional subscription information. -Don- ************************* > > Pete Goodell > IPM Advisor - Kearney Ag Center - Univ Calif > pbgoodell@uckac.edu > xzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxcresszxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx z z x Don Cress, Extension Pesticide Coordinator Phone 913/532-5891 x z Dept. Entomology, Kansas State University FAX 913/532-6258 z x Manhattan, KS 66506 E-mail DCRESS@OZ.UMB.KSU.EDU x z z xzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxcresszxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Dec 21 11:42:58 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA08333 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:42:55 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:43:21 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: NASDA letter asking WPS delay As Ray S. McAllister foretold in his post last Thursday, NASDA has sent a 12/19/94 letter to Senator Cochran and Representatives Roberts and Boehner, asking Congress to delay WPS implementation once again until (a) EPA resolves the concerns raised in the July NASDA petition to the Agency, and (b) Congress specifically gives the green light. Thanks to Mark Nestlen of NASDA for providing a copy of the letter and to Ray for a computer file of its content. The bulk of information about the petition points at issue is in WordPerfect tabular form within the letter. Because the table will take some time to convert into ASCII text and makes the letter quite lengthy for a post, the complete document will be placed in the forum archive later this week (filename will be posted when it is available). But because the letter appears to be quite significant, forum subscribers may want to have whatever of it they can ASAP. Below is a copy of the non-tabular portion. Howard Rosenberg =============================================================== Coalition for Sensible Farmworker Protection December 19, 1994 The Honorable Thad Cochran United States Senate 326 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Cochran: As you are aware, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and eighteen other organizations, comprising the Coalition for Sensible Farmworker Protection, submitted a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 8, 1994 calling for a rulemaking to correct the serious flaws with the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides. You will recall that earlier this year Congress delayed enforcement of the WPS due to the lack of educational materials available to farmers and regulators and because of the practical problems associated with the regulation. As provided by that legislation, January 1, 1995 is the new date upon which the regulation will be enforceable. Due to concerns raised by NASDA and others in September, EPA, NASDA and House and Senate Agriculture Committee staff reviewed EPA's inaction on the NASDA et. al. petition and negotiated a strategy to act on the nine points prior to January 1, 1995. The agreements were contained in a September 30 letter from Assistant Administrator Lynn Goldman setting forth a process to address the issues. Unfortunately we must inform you that EPA has once again failed to address any of the issues and has missed every deadline established in the negotiations and set forth by the Agency in a follow-up meeting. Because of the serious nature of these issues which remain unresolved and because EPA has failed to even publish proposals in the _Federal Register_ for public comment as agreed to in the September 30, the below listed agricultural organizations are forced to once again ask Congress to further delay implementation of this regulation. As drafted, the WPS regulation cannot feasibly be implemented by farmers, cannot effectively be regulated by state regulators (not to mention the fact that the regulation represents a huge unfunded federal mandate), and it will not adequately protect farmworkers. Specifically, we are asking that Congress delay the enforcement of the regulation until the Agency addresses the nine points in the NASDA et. al. petition and Congress then approves the start-up of the WPS. Below is a chart showing the inactivity of EPA regarding each issue since September 30, 1994. --------------------------------------------------------- [The chart is *not* included in this post, but will be in full copy of the letter to be added to the WPS-Forum archive later this week. Column headings are: (1) ISSUE, (2) DEADLINE FOR ACTION, (3) EPA ACTION, and (4) COMMENTS ON INACTION.] --------------------------------------------------------- Paul Craig Roberts of the Institute for Political Economy recently said in _Business Week_, "Government is felt to be out of control because so much law is now made by activist executive branch officials and judges who are unaccountable to the people. If the GOP intends to address the electorate's real concerns and build a lasting majority constituency, it must reassert the people's right to rule themselves through their elected representatives." In explaining the consequences of other federal regulations created by federal bureaucrats rather than by Congress, Roberts used the example of the wetlands regulation and said that "many Americans have suffered regulatory confiscation of their property, and some are being prosecuted and imprisoned, on the basis of wetlands regulations that have no statutory basis. These regulations have been created by bureaucrats out of thin air." Like the wetlands regulations, the WPS has been created out of thin air, with no statutory basis, and on a faulty study without an adequate risk/benefit analysis. The difference is, even after Congress spoke last March and indicated there was significant problems with the regulation, the Agency still disregarded the position of lawmakers and continued to move forward without regard to Congressional thinking. Quick and decisive action by Congress to delay the enforcement of the WPS will show the American public that Congress means what it says regarding regulatory relief. Action is necessary within the first two weeks of Congress since state regulators will be required by the regulation to enforce the program starting January 1, 1995. As we have stated all along, we support the concepts embodied in the WPS. American agriculture wants to protect farmworkers and those who handle pesticides from unreasonable risks of pesticide exposure. This is a legitimate concern of everyone involved in agricultural production. But this policy must be implemented in a way that is reasonable to all. That means regulations that can be easily interpreted by regulators and the regulated community, that are not excessively costly and that don't unnecessarily hinder a business' ability to operate and prosper. Unfortunately, the WPS regulations fail these standards on all counts. It is vital to the industry that Congress once again delay the enforcement of the standard, this time allowing the program to start only after Congress has determined that enforcement is appropriate. Sincerely, Agricultural Retailers Association American Corn Growers Association Florida Citrus Mutual Florida Citrus Packers Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association Fruit Growers League of Jackson County, Inc. Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Hood River Grower-Shipper Association Idaho Onion Growers' Association International Apple Institute Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board Midwest Food Processors Association National Agricultural Aviation Association National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants National Association of State Departments of Agriculture National Association of State Foresters National Association of Wheat Growers National Corn Growers Association National Cotton Council National Council of Agricultural Employers National Grange New England Apple Council Nisei Farmers League North Carolina Growers Association, Inc. Northwest Horticultural Council Nyssa-Nampa Beet Growers Association Society of American Florists Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida Texas Cotton Ginners' Association Texas Cotton Producers, Inc. Treasure Coast Harvesting Association Turfgrass Producers International United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association Ventura County Agricultural Association Virginia Horticultural Society Wasco County Fruit League Washington Growers League Washington State Horticultural Association Note: Letter also sent to Representatives Roberts and Boehner From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Wed Dec 21 11:58:53 1994 Received: from hinc.hinc.hawaii.gov ([199.74.168.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA08796 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:58:52 -0800 Received: by hinc.hawaii.gov (5.0/SMI-4.1) id AA05895; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:45:27 -1000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:45:26 -1000 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" To: wps forum Subject: Worker training materials in Portuguese Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 0 Does anyone have worker training materials in Portuguese? I anticipate a need soon, for an employer is considering hiring workers from Brazil. I know this is a last minute request, but demographics of our workforce here seem to be changing overnight without notice. If anyone knows of a source, please contact me. Gerald Kinro Hawaii Department of Agriculture From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wed Dec 21 16:08:20 1994 Received: from dale.ucdavis.edu (dale.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.149]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA14276 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 16:08:20 -0800 Received: by dale.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id QAA26934; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 16:08:29 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 16:08:29 -0800 (PST) From: "[user unknown]" X-Sender: szbillik@dale To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Worker training materials in Portuguese In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII No, but I have been sent worker training materials in Italian. I plan to forward these on to Pat Marer at UC Davis. Gregorio On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Gerald Y. Kinro wrote: > Does anyone have worker training materials in Portuguese? I anticipate a > need soon, for an employer is considering hiring workers from Brazil. I > know this is a last minute request, but demographics of our workforce > here seem to be changing overnight without notice. If anyone knows of a > source, please contact me. > > Gerald Kinro > Hawaii Department of Agriculture > From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Dec 22 10:56:35 1994 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA15922 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 1994 10:56:34 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 22 Dec 1994 13:40:46 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 13:52:58 -0500 To: WPS-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Translations of WPS materials In response to Gerald Kinro's message of December 21, requesting a Portugese translation of WPS materials for use in training, the EPA does not have any translations of the WPS training materials into Portugese. This particular langauage was not identified as a high priority for translation by the EPA Translation Workgroup last year. However, the EPA Regions and HQ have worked with others in translating the WPS Worker Handbook into 8 other languages. These are: Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Mandrin), Tagalo (Filipino), Creole, Laotian, Korean, and Polish. We are in the process of obtaining funding for having these translations (hand-written in some cases) typeset for printing purposes, after which they will be made widely available through the State Departments of Agriculture and EPA to whomever needs them. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago) From <@keats.ca.uky.edu:ent02c@ent02c.ext.ca.uky.edu> Thu Dec 22 12:58:24 1994 Received: from ncc.uky.edu (ncc.uky.edu [128.163.1.6]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA18216 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 1994 12:58:23 -0800 Received: from keats.ca.uky.edu by ncc.uky.edu id ab23055; 22 Dec 94 15:56 EST Received: from k30hent02c by keats.ca.uky.edu id aa18140; 22 Dec 94 15:53 EST Received: by ca.uky.edu (AgMail ver 2.20+) Thu 22 Dec 94 15:47:29:58 Date: Thu 22 Dec 94 15:47:29:58 From: Lee Townsend Message-ID: <29550@ca.uky.edu> X-Mailer: AgMail ver 2.20+ To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Greenhouse Reply-To: ltownsen@ca.uky.edu Greenhouse operations have increased dramatically in Kentucky during the past 3 years. Consequently, we have gotten many questions about pesticide use in the greenhouse. About 2 years ago we were informed that the word "greenhouse" needed to be on the product label for legal use. We have recently heard from our state lead agency that "if the label is silent", that is, it does not specifically prohibit greenhouse application, then the product can be used in the greenhouse if the crop/site is on the label. How do WPS standards fit into this area? --- Lee Townsend Voice (606) 257-7455 Department of Entomology FAX (606) 323-1120 S-225 Ag. Sci. Bldg. N ltownsen@ca.uky.edu University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40546-0091 From whashi@aloha.net Fri Dec 23 13:00:16 1994 Received: from hookomo (hookomo.aloha.net [204.94.112.33]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA03658 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 1994 13:00:11 -0800 Received: from whashi.u.aloha.net by hookomo with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0rLH5V-000a0RC; Fri, 23 Dec 94 10:59 WET Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 10:59 WET X-Sender: whashi@aloha.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: whashi@aloha.net (Wayne Hashimoto) Subject: Re: Worker training materials in Portuguese X-Mailer: >Does anyone have worker training materials in Portuguese? I anticipate a >need soon, for an employer is considering hiring workers from Brazil. I >know this is a last minute request, but demographics of our workforce >here seem to be changing overnight without notice. If anyone knows of a >source, please contact me. > >Gerald Kinro >Hawaii Department of Agriculture > > Dear Gerald Kinro, I am a brazilian post-doc working for the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association. I am interested in working on the translation of the WPS material into portuguese. Please let me know if you need my services. Sincerely, Rogerio Koury Menescal Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association 99-193 Aiea Heights Drive Aiea, HI 96701 Phone: 808 486 5390 Office 808 486 5518 Laboratory Fax: 808 486 5020 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Dec 23 13:14:54 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.103] (gia5mac23.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA03819 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 1994 13:14:52 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 13:15:16 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: letters and greetings 1. Complete content of the 12/19/94 letter to Senator Cochran from NASDA et al, asking Congress to again delay WPS enforcement, will be in the WPS-Forum archive by next Monday evening (12/26). Apologies to any of you counting on it by end of this week, as previously advertised. Its filename will be "cochran.let". To obtain a copy (Monday or later), send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM cochran.let 2. Mark Nestlen of NASDA has provided a copy of yet another letter of interest. This one was sent 12/21/94 to Lynn R. Goldman and Steven A. Herman, both EPA Assistant Administrators, and it requests formal clarification of EPA policy regarding responsibility and liability standards under the WPS. It thus focuses on one of the nine areas of concern in the July petition--the distribution of liability among agricultural employers, owners and operators, and the FLCs or other contractors whose services they may use. It runs more than six pages and is signed by NASDA, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Agricultural Aviation Association, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, and the Society of American Florists, under the letterhead of the Coalition for Sensible Farmworker Protection. At this time we do not have a computer file of the letter to put in archive. Perhaps after the holidays. 3. Although the campus powers have promised to turn off the heat in these parts and officially close most buildings for the next 10 days, our trusty computer @are.berkeley.edu will be up and running on its usual 24-hour, 7 day/week schedule. ListProc remains at your service to process postings and requests of the system. While we're here, I want to extend to all forum participants my best wishes for the holidays. May the season bring you each warmth, joy, rest, and productivity in whatever proportions you desire. The greeting below was composed by S. Antonio Ruiz-Quintanilla at Cornell. "X" "XXX" "XXXXX" "GOD JUL" "BUON ANNO" "FELIZ NATAL" "JOYEUX NOEL" "VESELE VANOCE" "MELE KALIKIMAKA" "NODLAG SONA DHUIT" "BLWYDDYN NEWYDD DDA" """""""BOAS FESTAS""""""" "FELIZ NAVIDAD" "MERRY CHRISTMAS" "KALA CHRISTOUGENA" "VROLIJK KERSTFEEST" "FROHLICHE WEIHNACHTEN" "BUON NATALE-GODT NYTAR" "HUAN YING SHENG TAN CHIEH" "WESOLYCH SWIAT-SRETAN BOZIC" "MOADIM LESIMHA-LINKSMU KALEDU" "HAUSKAA JOULUA-AID SAID MOUBARK" """""""'N PRETTIG KERSTMIS""""""" "ONNZLLISTA UUTTA VUOTTA" "Z ROZHDESTYOM KHRYSTOVYM" "NADOLIG LLAWEN-GOTT NYTTSAR" "FELIC NADAL-GOJAN KRISTNASKON" "S NOVYM GODOM-FELIZ ANO NUEVO" "GLEDILEG JOL-NOELINIZ KUTLU OLSUM" "EEN GELUKKIG NIEUWJAAR-SRETAN BOSIC" "KRIHSTLINDJA GEZUAR-KALA CHRISTOUGENA" "SELAMAT HARI NATAL - LAHNINGU NAJU METU" """""""SARBATORI FERICITE-BUON ANNO""""""" "ZORIONEKO GABON-HRISTOS SE RODI" "BOLDOG KARACSONNY-VESELE VIANOCE " "MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR" "ROOMSAID JOULU PUHI -KUNG HO SHENG TEN" "FELICES PASUAS - EIN GLUCKLICHES NEUJAHR" "PRIECIGUS ZIEMAN SVETKUS SARBATORI VESLLE" "BONNE ANNEBLWYDDYN NEWYDD DDADRFELIZ NATAL" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX ************************************************************************ Howard Rosenberg From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Fri Dec 23 17:36:18 1994 Received: from hinc.hinc.hawaii.gov ([199.74.168.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA06052 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 1994 17:36:12 -0800 Received: by hinc.hawaii.gov (5.0/SMI-4.1) id AA25740; Fri, 23 Dec 1994 15:30:46 -1000 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 15:30:46 -1000 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Worker training materials in Portuguese In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 236 To Rogerio via Wayne Hashimoto: Thanks for your offer. I'll contact you immediately after the holiday season to speak of possible translations of worker training materials. Till then, Mele Kalikimaka and Hauoli Makahiki Hou. Gerald From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Dec 27 13:59:22 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA12582 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 13:59:21 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HL58VSCGY88X9XRE@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 16:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HL58RDNDNK8YBNA5@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 16:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 16:53:24 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 16:53:24 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 16:46:00 -0500 (EST) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: 12/15 EPA letter to NASDA To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HL58REOVYU8YBNA5@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, 27 Dec 1994 16:50:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;42356172214991/2197285@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Attached is the letter from Lyn Goldman to Rick Perry, dated 12/15/94. Mr. Rick Perry Chairman, NASDA Worker Protection Task Force Commissioner, Texas Department of Agriculture National Associations of State Departments of Agriculture 1156-15th Street Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Perry: As January 1, 1995 approaches, marking the full implementation date for the 1992 Worker Protection Standard, I think it is appropriate to provide you with an update on our efforts to resolve concerns about the WPS raised by the agricultural community. As you know, specific concerns with the WPS were addressed by the April 1994 legislation which postponed full WPS implementation until January 1. In response to these events and extensive communication with grower groups and other stakeholders, EPA identified five major actions which needed to be addressed by January 1. They are: 1) complete and distribute the educational materials needed in the field, 2) explore an exemption for early entry irrigation activities, 3) consider proposing shorter restricted entry intervals (REIs) for lower risk pesticides, such as many biological pesticides, 4) reassess the training provision of the rule, and 5) reassess the crop advisor provisions of the rule. Additionally, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a petition for rulemaking to revise portions of the WPS. As discussed in previous correspondence and acknowledged by NASDA, we believe that EPA has met its commitment to produce and distribute the needed WPS educational, compliance and training materials in the field. More than 600,000 WPS compliance manuals and over 1,500,000 training handbooks for agricultural workers, 400,000 handbooks for pesticide handlers, and 300,000 safety posters have been distributed. Training flipcharts, a guide to heat stress, a train-the- trainer program, training videos, and fact sheets have also been produced. These materials are available at reasonable costs from a number of sources. We have advanced the other four actions and expect to publish all for comment in short order. The status of these major actions follows. A proposed exception for early-entry irrigation activities, with similar requirements as those that have been in effect during the delay legislation, has been completed by the Agency and is with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for a courtesy 10 day review prior to publication in the federal register. In its July petition, NASDA related its support for the reduced personal protection equipment required for irrigation workers in the Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension Act. We believe our proposal addresses NASDA's concerns. A Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) proposing shorter restricted entry intervals (REIs) for lower risk pesticides (such as many biologicals) has been completed by the Agency and is with OMB and USDA for a courtesy 10 day review. The PRN would allow pesticide companies to change their labels to reduce the REI for many products in toxicity categories 3 and 4 from 12 hours to 4 hours through a certification and notification process. Currently 79 out of 150 Active Ingredients in Toxicity categories 3 and 4 are potential candidates under this proposal. We believe that this proposal corresponds to some of the changes proposed in the matrix for toxicity categories 3 and 4 in NASDA's petition. Upon completion of OMB and USDA's review, we intend to publish this document for public comment prior to issuing the Notice to Pesticide Registrants. A proposed rule revision to safety training requirements has been completed by the Agency and is with OMB and USDA for their requisite review prior to publication in the federal register. NASDA requested a reduction of the 15- day grace training period (the number of days of employer before a worker must be trained) to 5 days and to maintain the 5 year retraining interval. The proposal seeks comment on a 0-day grace period, the elimination of 5-year interim period before implementation, and a 3-year retraining interval. A reduction of the grace period to between 0 and 5 days is presented as an option in the proposal. A proposed rule revision to the crop advisor provisions has completed official workgroup closure Friday, December 9. In your petition, NASDA requested that EPA revise the WPS to exempt paid crop advisors who work on a full-time basis for a group of agricultural employers, but only part-time for any single farmer. Further, your petition requested that EPA revise the standard to exclude certain types of well-trained knowledgeable individuals (such as government agency employees, pesticide company representatives and university researchers) from the requirements. EPA's proposal considers a broad exemption to all crop advisors similar to the delay legislation, but specifically proposes to exempt a subset of crop advisors from many of the WPS requirements. The package will be sent to OMB and USDA this week for review prior to publication in the federal register. We are hopeful that the above four actions will be published for comment in the January timeframe and completed for the upcoming spring growing season. The completion of these proposed actions represent a tremendous level of effort and reflects the Agency's commitment to work with the agricultural community and to address their concerns in a timely manner. In addition to the five actions discussed above, EPA committed to working with NASDA to address "low contact" activities performed in a treated area during a REI. In it's petition, NASDA requested an exception for all low contact activities and requested the incorporation of a "low contact" definition into the rule, as well as allowing all low-contact work to be performed for more than one hour in a 24-hour period. In September, EPA committed to NASDA to propose an exemption in the November timeframe, provided we received the necessary information by the end of October. In October, EPA received lists of activities of possible low contact activities submitted by Pesticide State Lead Agencies as well as commodity associations. EPA compiled the lists of activities and met on several occasions with NASDA to discuss the submitted activities and "low contact" activities in general. It appears to us that many of the activities could be performed within the existing early entry provisions. Based on this, I believe that EPA and NASDA concluded that it would be useful to clarify the existing early entry opportunities. While it is clearly the intent of the regulation to preclude early entry activities generally, the WPS does allow access during the REI under certain circumstances. The Agency is completing several fact sheets addressing these circumstances, such as "No Contact Early Entry Activities", "Short Term Early Entry Activities", and "Agricultural Emergencies Early Entry Activities" in the January timeframe. Additionally, EPA currently is deliberating whether specific exemptions for the list of activities submitted is a sensible approach and is exploring the development of a low contact definition. We hope to meet with NASDA on low contact again shortly. We have also engaged in discussions with NASDA on the duration of the decontamination supply requirement, bilingual requirements and employer liability issues associated with workers' and handlers' wearing of PPE. I believe these issues require additional discussion and while I understand that NASDA may submit revised proposals on one or more of these, I propose we meet to continue the dialogue in the near future. NASDA inquired about our enforcement posture, beginning in January, with regard to the four actions pending completion. According to EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, EPA intends to recommend to the State Lead Agencies that these four specific situations not be a priority for enforcement targeting given that they are undergoing revisions. When these four areas are finalized, it would be appropriate for the states to at first emphasize outreach and compliance assistance on the specific revisions. It should be noted, however, that the proposed safety training changes would shorten the current 15 day grace period during which a worker must be trained. As a result, given the critical importance of training, EPA will advise the states that during Fiscal Year (FY 1995) they should ensure that training is provided at least within a 15 day period and communicate the reduction in the grace period to the regulated community. With regard to the rest of the WPS, during FY 1995 EPA expects that the states will provide compliance assistance, conduct inspections, and focus enforcement actions on pesticide companies with incorrect label language on their products and egregious violations of use provisions. A couple of examples of egregious violations are cases where prescribed personal protective equipment or training was not provided to a worker at all. EPA expects that the states will follow enforcement response policies which they have developed and which take into account such serious violations. I believe that the framework of the rule is a sound one. The rule takes basic steps to: Reduce exposure to pesticides -- by excluding workers during application, and by requiring Restricted Entry Intervals, Personal Protective Equipment, and notification of treated areas provisions; Mitigate any harmful exposures -- by requiring decontamination supplies (water, soap, paper towels) and emergency assistance (transport and information) provisions; Inform farm workers -- so that they can take the measures needed to protect themselves, by requiring safety training, the display of the safety poster, and providing label and treatment information. As we work diligently to address the agricultural community's concerns, I believe it is important that we not lose sight of our mutual goal to ensure health protection for the farmworkers of this nation. To achieve this goal, I believe that it is imperative that we move forward with full implementation of the WPS. As noted above, I believe that the foundation of the WPS is solid and the protections afforded are basic and straightforward. Our discussions with NASDA and other stakeholders have assisted in achieving improved comprehension of the issues to address to enhance the overall program. We intend to continue working with the agricultural community to promote better understanding of the WPS rule, to assist in clarifying growers' responsibilities, to support outreach and educational activities, and to continue to identify and address issues of concern. The issues we have been working on with NASDA fall within the reduction and mitigation of exposure groupings above. Conceptually, I think we might agree that these are protection results we all must support. However, we are committed to continuing the dialogue on how best to arrive at these end points. It is unfortunate, however, that NASDA has spoken of its intent to seek further delay of the WPS when Congress reconvenes in January. Given the level of investment made by involved federal agencies, pesticide state lead agencies, pesticide companies and agricultural establishment owners and the potential health benefits to the close to four million farm workers, another delay would neither be prudent, nor in the public interest. I strongly urge NASDA to continue the dialogue with EPA to make the Worker Protection Program a success and I will be in touch to arrange a meeting with you to discuss EPA's progress in addressing NASDA's concerns. Please feel free to call me directly with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Lynn R. Goldman, M.D. Assistant Administrator cc: Richard W. Kirchoff, NASDA Executive Vice President From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Dec 29 10:07:43 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA02262 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 10:07:43 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 10:06:28 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 10:06:35 -0800 To: WPS-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: On 12/28/94 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation faxed a letter on 1/1/95 enforcement o On 12/28/94 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation faxed a letter on 1/1/95 enforcement of the WPS to county agricultural commissioners. The letter is identified as ENF 94-073 and is 2 pages long. The gist can be summed up in the following quotes. "Overall, our pesticide handler and (field) worker safety regulatory program is still equivalent to the federal program." "The Department's position is that compliance with the WPS will be met through enforcement of (pesticide) labelling requirements, existing California regulations, and the fieldworker training program." "Commissioners should continue to enforce product labelling requirements and the California regulatory program, taking the necessary compliance action against violations." Roy R DPR From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Dec 29 15:39:15 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA06375 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:39:14 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:37:58 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:38:17 -0800 To: wps-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: On 12/28/94 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation faxed a letter on 1/1/95 enforcement o On 12/28/94 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation faxed a letter on 1/1/95 enforcement of the WPS to county agricultural commissioners. The letter is identified as ENF 94-073 and is 2 pages long. The gist can be summed up in the following quotes. "Overall, our pesticide handler and (field) worker safety regulatory program is still equivalent to the federal program." "The Department's position is that compliance with the WPS will be met through enforcement of (pesticide) labelling requirements, existing California regulations, and the fieldworker training program." "Commissioners should continue to enforce product labelling requirements and the California regulatory program, taking the necessary compliance action against violations." "We suggest commissioners take a "compliance assistance" approach on field worker training." "Implementing the WPS in California is dependent on the final resolution of outstanding issues and the equivalency request." Roy R DPR From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Dec 29 20:12:27 1994 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA08294 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 20:12:26 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id XAA29023; Thu, 29 Dec 1994 23:11:51 -0500 Date: 29 Dec 94 23:09:32 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Greenhouse applications Message-ID: <941230040932_73507.555_HHB36-1@CompuServe.COM> Lee Townsend asked: The WPS does not address this sort of label interpretation question. Pesticide labeling is one national standard we already have, since pesticides are registered by the U.S. EPA. States should be consistent in their interpretations of pesticide labeling. I believe what you have recently heard is correct. If the label does not prohibit greenhouse application and all other directions on the label can be followed during the application, the application is not in conflict with the label. However for an application to a food commodity grown in the greenhouse, the label must specifically state that application in a greenhouse is permissible. Robert Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From pbaker@ag.Arizona.EDU Fri Dec 30 13:36:51 1994 Received: from ag.Arizona.EDU (Ag.Arizona.EDU [128.196.42.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA14480 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 13:36:49 -0800 Received: by ag.Arizona.EDU (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11107; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 14:37:47 +0700 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 14:37:47 -0700 (MST) From: Paul B Baker To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Greenhouse In-Reply-To: <29550@ca.uky.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 1172 Lee: Thats and excellent question and I am looking for a regulatory response. Paul Baker (602) 621-4012 Pesticide Coordinator's Office (602) 621-4013 FAX Department of Entomology pbaker@ag.arizona.edu University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Lee Townsend wrote: > > > Greenhouse operations have increased dramatically in Kentucky during the > past 3 years. Consequently, we have gotten many questions about pesticide > use in the greenhouse. About 2 years ago we were informed that the word > "greenhouse" needed to be on the product label for legal use. We have > recently heard from our state lead agency that "if the label is silent", > that is, it does not specifically prohibit greenhouse application, then the > product can be used in the greenhouse if the crop/site is on the label. > > How do WPS standards fit into this area? > --- > > Lee Townsend Voice (606) 257-7455 > Department of Entomology FAX (606) 323-1120 > S-225 Ag. Sci. Bldg. N ltownsen@ca.uky.edu > University of Kentucky > Lexington, KY 40546-0091 >