From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Fri Jul 1 11:21:10 1994 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (ucipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA11216 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 11:21:09 -0700 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199407011821.LAA11216@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 01 Jul 94 11:19:30 PDT To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 01 Jul 94 11:19:30 PDT UC Statewide IPM Project 1994 Train-The-Trainer Programs for Trainers of Pesticide Handlers and Agricultural Fieldworkers: 1. Programs for Trainers of Pesticide Handlers/Fieldworkers (Training workshop hours: 8 am - 5 pm at all locations. Cost: $100.00 includes manual, other handouts, lunch, and refreshments. Space is limited to 40 participants at each location.) September 20, 1994 - San Diego County September 21, 1994 - Ventura County September 23, 1994 - Monterey County September 28, 1994 - Fresno County [September 29, 1994 - Fresno County if September 28 event is sold out] November 9, 1994 - Sacramento County November 10, 1994 - Stanislaus County November 15, 1994 - Napa County November 17, 1994 - Butte County 2. Programs for Trainers of Fieldworkers (These programs will be conducted in Spanish. Training workshop hours: 8 am - 5 pm at all locations. Cost: $40.00 includes manual, other handouts, and refreshments. Space is limited to 25 participants at each location.) October 4, 1994 - Woodland October 6, 1994 - Napa October 11, 1994 - Modesto October 12, 1994 - Fresno October 18, 1994 - Salinas October 19, 1994 - Oxnard October 20, 1994 - El Centro Locations and dates subject to change. Participation in these train-the-trainer programs meets the requirements of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and US Environmental Protection Agency for trainers of pesticide handlers and agricultural fieldworkers under the Federal Worker Protection Act. For further information or to receive registration materials, contact the UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, IPM Education and Publications Office at (916)752-7691. NOTE: No PCA or Pesticide Applicator continuing education hours will be provided. From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Fri Jul 1 11:22:01 1994 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (ucipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA11395 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 11:22:00 -0700 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199407011822.LAA11395@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 01 Jul 94 11:20:12 PDT To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 01 Jul 94 11:20:12 PDT Worker Protection Standard Training Materials: HANDBOOK FOR PESTICIDE HANDLERS and HANDBOOK FOR AGRICULTURAL FIELDWORKERS Non-profit organizations and agricultural employers can receive quantities Of these manuals free of charge at four locations in California: Sacramento California Farm Bureau Federation 1601 Exposition Boulevard Sacramento Monday through Friday, 8 am to 12 noon Contact Penny Wilson or Lorrel Weise - (916)924-4051 Salinas SoilServ 1427 Abbott Street Salinas Monday through Friday, 8 am to 12 noon Contact Yvette Black - (408)422-6473 Fresno Target Specialty Products 2478 N. Sunnyside Avenue Fresno Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm Contact Sandy Patterson - (209)291-7740 San Diego Target Specialty Products 7675 Formula Drive, Suite D San Diego Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm Contact Lynette Shires - (619)586-1933 From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Jul 1 11:37:18 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA13665 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 11:37:17 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 01 Jul 1994 11:37:28 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 01 Jul 1994 11:37:14 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Implementation of WPS in California; 7/1/94 update NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS SLIGHTLY REVISED FROM THE ORIGINAL ONE POSTED. IT HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED ON JULY 26, 1994, AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR. In response to Howard's question about progress in California on implementation of the WPS regulations. The fact that Jim Wells, our Department Director, is president of the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) has probably increased his personal interest in the implementation of the WPS and also the political sensitivity overall. We have had a long history of Pesticide worker protection experience here in California. USEPA has insisted that their words be used and/or the inclusion of their specific definitions of our current terms even when we have been interpreting our words similar to the Standard. For example, we have required decontamination sites to be "available" for years (since 1974). The USEPA demanded that we define it because somehow we might not require them to be "close enough" even though they have been tied to the field sanitation standard which has similar distances. We also have a real disagreement about the need for "display" of application specific information. USEPA doesn't seem to realize that there are other good uses of this information other than by employees who might feel intimidated. California requires that more useful information be retained for 2 years. It is unreasonable to require that an employer keep this information in a situation where it is not under any kind of security and be responsible for it. However the "display" standard in the WPS has been interpreted as requiring that "an employee be able to approach and read or handle the documents without having to make a request of anyone." Even if we add the active ingredient to the required use report information, California is going to have to require one more piece of paper per application just to meet the WPS requirement of having application information displayed for the employees. The use report has value to many other users including processors, PCA's meeting plantback restrictions or rotating chemicals to mitigate pest resistance, meeting the USDA requirement for RUP records in the Farm Bill, etc. This same "display" standard applies to the safety "poster" information. California plans on using the PSIS A-8 & 9 for this since it is already in place. For fieldworkers we now require it to be "available" at the field. This will have to be changed to "display". It isn't the words exactly but the different interpretations that they represent. We intend to request equivalency to be allowed to omit requiring it to also be at the "central location". California and many other states have questioned the practicality of the "central location " concept when applied generally to all agricultural situations. These examples may seem picky, but multiplied by the vast number of applications it quickly becomes significant.. Another point is the greenhouse ventilation criteria. Everything below the calculated 10 air exchanges is real shaky at best. According to our Department industrial hygienist, the order demanded by the WPS is reversed from what it should be. As active ventilation is generally more effective, it should be used first to move the most volume of the highest concentration, so the less effective methods are acting on a lower concentration. Additionally the limited flexibility to combine methods in the WPS has no basis. We intend to request equivalency to be allowed to reverse the order and allow greenhouse growers greater flexibility in ventilation. There are some very good environmental reasons to allow this flexibility. I just (6/29/94 @ 9:45 AM PDT) got the go-ahead to mail out copies of discussion drafts of the proposed regulations and Initial Statement of Reasons. It will be a letter to County Agricultural Commissioners, probably identified as WHS 94-3. One last bit of information that could be of interest to growers gearing up to comply. Included in our request for equivalency (still draft, not yet officially sent) is a request to continue to use the current skull and crossbones format for field posting rather than the hand and face specified by the WPS. Until this sorts itself out I would urge California growers to sit tight and keep in touch with their county agricultural commissioner. Roy Rutz royr@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov From sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu Wed Jul 6 09:35:51 1994 Received: from dale.ucdavis.edu (dale.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.149]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA08368 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 1994 09:35:50 -0700 From: sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu Received: by dale.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA08828; Wed, 6 Jul 1994 09:36:04 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 09:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Implementation of WPS in California; 7/1/94 update To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Roy, Thanks for the update on the WPS negotiations between CDPR and USEPA. We, at CDFA are curious as to the status of the industry/DPR proposed irrigation exception to the WPS. We'd appreciate any insights or recent info you have. Thanks. Valerie Brown & Steve Shaffer From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Jul 7 11:53:15 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.39] (gia3mac29.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.39]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA13730 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 1994 11:53:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199407071853.LAA13730@are.Berkeley.EDU> X-Sender: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 11:53:13 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard Rosenberg) Subject: Not just for history buffs Another set of files that together contain a large, basic reference document has been added to the forum archive. The EPA's "Summary Of The Public's Comments And The Agency's Response" discusses the response to its Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in July 1988. Comments presented to EPA through correspondence and in a series of public meetings during the summer of 1988 were significant in development of the 1991 draft WPS and the 1992 final rule. The document is in six ASCII files, as described below. Following the file list is a copy of the relatively brief introductory section from the first file (pubcom.ar1), which provides additional background about the document. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the form of a request to obtain any of these files is: GET WPS-Forum filename. Please remember to address requests to ListProc, not to WPS-Forum. For example, to get the Appendix, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-Forum pubcom.ar6 Howard Rosenberg ------------------------------------------------------- [Files that contain the document] FILENAME CONTENT (Parts of "Summary Of The Public's Comments") pubcom.ar1 ---- Introduction Outline of Contents I. Comments on the Organization of the Final Rule pubcom.ar2 ---- II. Comments on the Need and Scope A. Need for Revisions to Present Standards B. The Scope C. Exceptions D. Definitions E. Duties F. Enforcement pubcom.ar3 --- III. Comments on Provisions of the Proposal A. Pesticide Safety Training and Information B. Training for Handlers C. Training for Early-Entry Workers D. Knowledge of Labeling Information E. Notice of Applications pubcom.ar4 ---- F. Restrictions Associated with Applications G. Entry Restrictions H. Personal Protective Equipment pubcom.ar5 ---- I. Decontamination J. Cholinesterase Monitoring K. Emergency Assistance L. Other Comments IV. Labeling Statements A. Background of Proposal B. Reference Statement C. General Statements D. Restricted-Entry Statements E. Posting Statements F. Personal Protective Equipment Statements G. Other Comments V. Relationship to State Regulations A. National Minimum Standards Approach B. Effect on Existing State Regulations C. State Regulations and Federal Labeling pubcom.ar6 ---- VI. Appendix References in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking References in the final rule Public Comments ------------------------------------------------------- [Introductory Section of 1st File] EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the July 8, 1988, FEDERAL REGISTER to revise 40 CFR part 170, Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides. The proposed revisions would expand the scope of part 170 to include all workers performing tasks related to the production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of pesticides used on agricultural plants in these locations. The NPRM also proposed to expand requirements for notification to workers about applications, use of personal protective equipment, and restrictions on entry to treated areas, and to add new provisions for decontamination, emergency medical assistance, maintaining contact with handlers of highly toxic pesticides, cholinesterase monitoring, and safety training. In addition, EPA proposed to promulgate labeling regulations to require statements pertaining to general worker protection, reentry intervals, personal protective equipment, and posting of treated areas. The proposed revisions were based on five major concerns. First, the Agency believed that data developed subsequent to 1974 (the promulgation date of the existing part 170) concerning pesticide poisoning of workers demonstrated inadequacies and shortcomings in the scope and requirements of part 170. Many of these data were placed into the record by EPA and other parties to this rulemaking. Second, the enforcement experiences of EPA and the States over the years had led the Agency to conclude that a clearer exposition of liability and responsibility provisions would lead to improved worker protection. Third, the Agency had determined that since the reregistration program would not be completed for some pesticides for several years, measures were necessary to protect workers in the interim. Fourth, EPA believed that protection should be provided to workers not covered by the present part 170. Finally, the Agency noted the increased use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides since 1974. These pesticides tend to be more acutely toxic to humans than pesticides commonly used in agriculture in the past. During July and August of 1988, EPA held more than 15 public meetings, mostly in agricultural areas of the country, to explain the proposed rules and to answer questions (see 53 FR 25970, July 8, 1988). The major meetings were held in: Washington, DC; Casa Grande, AZ; Fresno, CA; Greeley, CO; Orlando, FL; Forest Park, GA; Caldwell, ID; Des Moines, IA; Augusta, ME; Hagerstown, MD; Salisbury, MD; Holyoke, MA; New Paltz, NY; Maumee, OH; McAllen, TX; and Yakima, WA. In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency received 381 pieces of correspondence, totaling more than 2100 pages. References to the rulemaking record are made in the text of this document. The Worker Protection Standard docket (OPP-300164A) contains the NPRM, references cited in the NPRM, public comments on the NPRM, references submitted with the public comments, materials the Agency has added to reply to the public comments, and the Regulatory Impact Analyses for the NPRM and the final rule. After a careful review and analysis of the comments and data in the record, the Agency is revising 40 CFR part 170 (Worker Protection Standard) and adding part 156, subpart K (Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices). This document summarizes the public's comments on each provision of the proposed rule and presents the Agency's final determination. ------------------------------------------------------- From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Fri Jul 8 09:14:57 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA29043 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:14:57 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA22860; Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:14:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:14:30 -0700 Message-Id: <199407081614.JAA22860@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL Dear WPS netters: A couple of weeks ago I announced the availability of free copies of an Instructor's Manual and Melanie Zavala's game, "La Loteria de los Pesticidas," for those who teach agricultural labor management and safety. I received about a dozen requests for free copies of the game or the manual (or both). If you are among those who requested these, you should be receiving your game or manual any day. We still have more copies of the game and of the manual available. Melanie Zavala's game LA LOTERIA DE LOS PESTICIDAS is an excellent way to present or review concepts on pesticide safety to Spanish-speaking farm workers. It is also a good way to break up a longer safety session and give workers a chance to get more actively involved in the presentation. The INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL includes role-plays and activities to teach human resource management in agriculture and covers such topics as employee selection, promotion, performance appraisal, pay, communication, discipline, labor relations, and supervision. (If you know anybody teaching these subjects in the agricultural community you may want to let them know about the availability of this manual.) The manual also includes a section by Melanie Zavala on how to use the game effectively; Patrick Marer shares some ideas on how to put together a large scale pesticide handler workshop; Guadalupe Sandoval gives us an EPA approved script (including questions and answers) for training farm workers (EPA # WPS-9-W-1), and information is enclosed on how to order Hugh Homan's video on PESTICIDE SAFETY: WORKER PROTECTION (EPA # WPS-10-WH-1) approved for training both workers and handlers. To obtain a free copy of Melanie's game, or of the Instructor's Manual (or both), please send your request on your university, agency or consultant's letterhead. If you want to obtain Melanie's game but don't work for a University, agency or as a professional consultant, you may order the game for $15 from ANR Publications, University of California, 6701 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, CA 94608-1239 or by calling 510-642-2431. If you have any questions, please let me know. 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@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU Fri Jul 8 11:36:42 1994 Received: from WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU (wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu [134.121.1.39]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA04064 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 1994 11:36:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199407081836.LAA04064@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: from WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU by WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5194; Fri, 08 Jul 94 11:33:54 PDT Received: from WSUVM1 (RAMSAY) by WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU (Mailer R2.10 ptf008) with BSMTP id 1249; Fri, 08 Jul 94 11:33:54 PDT Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 11:30:12 PDT From: Carol Ramsay Organization: WSU CAHE USER Subject: Washington State WPS Training Schedule To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU WSU and WSDA are cosponsoring short courses this November for Handler and Trainers. Each course in 4 hrs at $15 per course. Courses are offered in both English and Spanish at 11 locations: Pasco, Yakima, Moses Lake, Spokane, Wenatchee, Okanogan, Mt. Vernon, Vancouver, Chehalis, Lynnwood, and Puyallup. These courses are NOT INTENDED for WORKERS. If you would like further information, please contact me; RAMSAY@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu or write to WSU Entomology, 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382, or phone 509-335-9222. From castillo Fri Jul 8 13:35:30 1994 Received: from localhost (castillo@localhost) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) id NAA08672 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Fri, 8 Jul 1994 13:35:30 -0700 From: Federico Castillo Message-Id: <199407082035.NAA08672@are.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: questions, questions ... To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 13:35:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1359 Hello members of wps-forum. There is no question I have learned about WPS a great deal since I became a member. By looking at the member's list I see a lot of people from Washington, Missouri, Montana, etc. I will like to know how this states (or regulators in the state) are dealing with a few issues that at least I know are relevant in California. The issue of equialency: There must be differences between state and WPS specifications (training, re-entry,etc). How are the different states dealing with this?. Are they still negotiating (if there was ever any negotiation)? The issue of enforcement: Who is in charge of enforcement and training? It is my understanding that in some states the individuals in charge of both of these tasks are not the same. If this is the case, does this situation poses any "logistical" problems? Economic impact of WPS: There is a (preliminary ) study on the economic impacts of WPS on California agriculture (employment, costs of operation, etc.). Are there any similar studies for other states? So, as you can see these are rather broad questions dealing with organizational aspects of implementation of WPS. I will like to know what people from the different states have to say about them. Thank you. Federico Castillo Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Berkeley castillo@are.berkeley.edu From tnally@cce.cornell.edu Mon Jul 11 10:58:50 1994 Received: from cce.cornell.edu (EMPIRE.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA09241 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 1994 10:58:49 -0700 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0qNPe5-0003V0C; Mon, 11 Jul 94 14:00 EDT Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 13:59:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Nally Subject: Re: INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <199407081614.JAA22860@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII nI would appreciate a copy of the game and the manual. Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, may the sunshine be warm upon your face, may the rain fall soft upon your fields and may God hold you in the palm of His hand. Tom Nally Cornell Cooperative Extension Agent Agriculture Program Leader CCE Monroe County CCE Ontario County 249 Highland Ave. 480 North Main St. Rochester, N.Y. 14624 Canandaigua, N.Y. 14424 Phone: 716-461-1000 Phone:716-394-4110 FAX: 716-442-7577 FAX: 716-394-0377 Internet:Tnally@empire.cce.cornell.edu ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From norwong@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Jul 11 15:12:05 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.98] (gia5mac18.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.98]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA15625 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 1994 15:12:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199407112212.PAA15625@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 15:12:55 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: norwong@are.Berkeley.EDU (Noreen Wong) Subject: Re: INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL >nI would appreciate a copy of the game and the manual. > >Thanks > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be always at your >back, may the sunshine be warm upon your face, may the rain fall >soft upon your fields and may God hold you in the palm of His hand. > Tom Nally > Cornell Cooperative Extension Agent > Agriculture Program Leader > CCE Monroe County CCE Ontario County > 249 Highland Ave. 480 North Main St. > Rochester, N.Y. 14624 Canandaigua, N.Y. 14424 > Phone: 716-461-1000 Phone:716-394-4110 > FAX: 716-442-7577 FAX: 716-394-0377 > Internet:Tnally@empire.cce.cornell.edu >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That was beautiful! It put a lump in my throat. From mrayburn@chowan.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Jul 12 07:36:31 1994 Received: from wolf.ces.ncsu.edu (wolf.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.18]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA24577 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 1994 07:36:30 -0700 Received: by wolf.ces.ncsu.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA29571; Tue, 12 Jul 94 10:35:31 EDT Received: by chowan.UUCP (smail2.5) id AA13481; 12 Jul 94 10:11:30 EDT (Tue) Subject: Re: questions, questions ... To: wps-forum@wolf!are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 10:11:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marjorie Rayburn" In-Reply-To: <199407082035.NAA08672@are.Berkeley.EDU> from "Federico Castillo" at Jul 8, 94 01:40:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1051 Message-Id: <9407121011.AA13481@chowan.UUCP> Responding to some questions of Federico Castillo re WPS enforcement and training in other states. In North Carolina, enforcement will be done by North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Pesticides Section. These are the same folks who now enforce other pesticide laws and license applicators, dealers, consultants, etc. Training is conducted by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. The idea is that Extension will train farmers who in turn will train their handlers and workers (with guidance, assistance, and materials provided by NCCES, of course). NCDA and NCCES have a long history of working together in the area of pesticide licensing and training, with NCDA being the licensing and regulatory organization and CES providing the training and education. --Marjorie Rayburn (Ms. IPM) (Area IPM Agent, NCCES) -- Marjorie Rayburn E-Mail : mrayburn@chowan Internet: mrayburn@chowan.ces.ncsu.edu Phone : (919) 482-8431 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Jul 13 17:41:57 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA15057 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 17:41:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199407140041.RAA15057@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 17:42:22 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: NASDA Proposals to Revise the WPS Last Friday the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) submitted to EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner a petition asking for significant revision of the Worker Protection Standard. The petition includes several specific proposals that NASDA formulated on the basis of information collected from its members (commissioners, secretaries, and directors of agriculture in the 50 states and 4 territories), worker representatives, and agricultural producers. Below is the text of NASDA's news release about this filing. The full 11-page petition would, of course, make a dandy addition to our archive. If any forum participant has it or can help obtain it in the form of a computer file, please holler. Howard Rosenberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 1020 Washington, DC 20005 NEWS RELEASE -- For 2:00 p.m. Release July 8, 1994 Contacts: Rick Kirchhoff Mark Nestlen telephone: 202/296-9680 NASDA Files Worker Protection Standard Petition with EPA WASHINGTON -- Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) today filed a petition for rulemaking with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting a revision to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides. "The petition was filed to correct serious problems with the Worker Protection Standard," said Texas Commissioner of Agriculture and Chairman of NASDA's Worker Protection Task Force, Rick Perry. "Making the changes suggested in the petition will meet one of the objectives Congress had when it delayed enforcement of the regulation." NASDA suggested a number of major changes, including: * Reducing the worker training grace period from 15 days to 5 days beginning January 1, 1995, and maintaining the five-year retraining interval; * Providing a reduced level of personal protective equipment (PPE) for low-contact activities -- consistent with the level required by the law passed by Congress -- to reduce the risk of worker heat stress; * Establishing a phased restricted entry interval (REI) which will encourage the use of less toxic chemicals and reduce the potential for worker exposure; * Providing an exception -- consistent with the law passed by Congress -- from the regulation for professional crop advisors; * Reducing the period of time that decontamination facilities are required to the length of the REI -- the time when the potential hazard exists; and * Allowing for the development and distribution of posting and training in the language spoken in the local area. "Protecting farmworkers and those who handle pesticides from unreasonable risks of pesticide exposure is important to agriculture and the modifications suggested by NASDA will help to assure farmworker protection," Perry continued. "Adopting the NASDA recommendations would be a major step in assuring American agriculture that we have a sound sensible policy in place to protect agricultural workers -- a policy that can be easily interpreted by regulators and regulations that don't unnecessarily hinder a business' ability to operate and prosper." Joining NASDA in the petition were the American Corn Growers Association, the Agricultural Retailers Association, the American Sod Producers, the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, DeBruyn Company, the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, Moore & Dorsey, Inc., the National Agricultural Aviation Association, the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the National Farmers Union, the National Grange, the North Carolina SweetPotato Commission, Inc., the Texas Cotton Ginners' Association, and the Washington Growers League. NASDA is a nonprofit association of public officials representing the Commissioners, Secretaries and Directors of Agriculture in the fifty states and four territories. ### From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Thu Jul 14 16:09:09 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA02344 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 1994 16:09:04 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HENUN5WMUO8WZOY7@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 15:16:30 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HENUI5ADAO8Y6IUA@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 15:12:37 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 15:10:25 EDT MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 15:10:25 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 15:07:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: Rose Exception--Explanation of documents To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HENUIGYGRI8Y6IUA@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: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 15:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;52015131704991/1381506@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 EPA developed the Q&A document for the Rose exception to explain in plain English what the exception is all about--please distribute this document as widely as possible. We are also working to get the actual Federal Register Notice posted on the WPS-Forum. We are having some hardware and software problems, but do hope to have the Notice posted very soon. The Notice explains why EPA took the action it did, and also explains in greater detail the conditions of the exception. The Q&A is most likely to be of greater interest to the general reeader, but if you would like a hard copy of the FR Notice, contact your state or tribal lead agency for pesticide regulation, or your EPA Regional Office. --Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9 415-744-1065 From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Jul 15 13:06:56 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.39] (gia3mac29.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.39]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA24133; Fri, 15 Jul 1994 13:06:54 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 13:06:54 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Gopher access to WPS-Forum Archives Cc: newman@garnet.Berkeley.EDU Greetings WPS-Forum members, Perhaps I should apologize to readers who don't have a clue what a computer gopher is? Rather than try to explain it here though, I'll just post this announcement for those who use gopher. If you don't know what gopher means in this context, feel free to ignore the announcement. The message and file archives of the WPS-Forum are now accessible using a Gopher client on the Internet. When a gopher connection is made to are.Berkeley.EDU, the Archive of the WPS-Forum is one of the menu items on the list and the contents can be read or downloaded. The machine are.Berkeley.EDU can also be located by going to the main University of California, Berkeley gopher (that could be found by looking in "North America, USA, California" for example). Once at the main UC Berkeley gopher menu, one should be able to locate the College of Natural Resources in the list of academic departments, and then locate Agricultural and Resource Economics as a sub-heading under the College of Natural Resources. The Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics computer is are.Berkeley.EDU. Please feel free to email me (dana@are.Berkeley.EDU) if there are any questions you have about this. Yours, Dana E. Keil Listproc Manager, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley From dana Sat Jul 16 12:01:29 1994 Received: from localhost (dana@localhost) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) id MAA19365 for wps-forum; Sat, 16 Jul 1994 12:01:29 -0700 From: "Dana E. Keil" Message-Id: <199407161901.MAA19365@are.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Cut roses exception/stay entered in archives To: wps-forum Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 12:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 773 We received the following submission and I am placing the documents mentioned in the WPS-Forum archives. The filename will be roses-stay.txt and the file can be viewed or retrieved using the new gopher capability or retrieved through the email command addressed to listproc@are.berkeley.edu : get wps-forum roses-stay.txt Yours, Dana Keil, Mailing list administrator Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California at Berkeley From: JAMES GRAVES 202-260-3417 Subject: CUT ROSES EXCEPTION/STAY To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU Hello, Attached are the Technical Amendment to the Early Entry Prohibition for Cut Roses and the Administrative Stay issued for publication in the Federal Register of June 10, 1994. From RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Mon Jul 18 13:33:50 1994 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA19906 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 13:33:48 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HEUWPXTLC08WZVXX@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 16:31:27 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HEUWOL3KB48WW3EW@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 16:30:23 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 16:26:01 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 16:26:01 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 16:17:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KAY RUDOLPH 510-733-1065 Subject: Issues on California Equivalency To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HEUWOM5VJQ8WW3EW@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, 18 Jul 1994 16:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;10626181704991/1399410@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 In a recent message, Roy Rutz of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation raised several points that require clarification. First, the federal Worker Protection Standard (WPS) is intended to be just that: a national standard. In some situations, states may feel that additional requirements are necessary. They are entirely free to establish regulations that are more protective than the Worker Protection Standard. But all states must meet at least the minimum of the Standard. In some respects, California's existing regulations are more protective than the federal WPS; in some respects, however, they are less protective. 1. Rutz' history of the discussions about reconciling the State and Federal regulations is incorrect. EPA never suggested that DPR needed to use the word "accessible" instead of "available" with regard to the proximity of decontamination facilities to workers. DPR adopted the new wording before discussing the issue with EPA. That substitution had already been made in the 7/19/93 draft of the CA regs the first draft that DPR provided to EPA. However, EPA was concerned that DPR did not include any definition of "reasonably accessible", as the Agency had been convinced by comments received by groups such as the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials that "reasonably accessible" needed to be defined. The WPS requires that decontamination facilities be within mile of where workers are working, at each mixing/loading site, and optionally on each aircraft doing a pesticide application. 2. Similarly, the requirement for "display" of information is not one of semantics. The issue of "display" versus "make available" comes down to the question of intimidation: do workers and handlers feel too intimidated to ask for information? In the process of developing the WPS, EPA received several comments that persuaded the Agency that intimidation is a genuine problem. With reason or not, workers and handlers are often afraid to ask for pesticide information. Therefore, EPA requires that a pesticide safety poster and information on recent applications be displayed in a central location that is, there must be at least one place where workers and handlers can have ready access to the information without having to ask anyone for permission. DPR has noted that the worksite may be more accessible than a central location, but EPA maintains that a key requirement is that the information be displayed--that workers not have to ask for the information. It is not sufficient that information be available on request at the worksite. Displaying the pesticide safety poster at the worksite would be satisfactory, as long as every worksite on the establishment has a posting otherwise, some workers would not have access to the information. It would be difficult to maintain at each worksite a list of all the recent applications that took place on the establishment; for this reason, EPA requires that the information be displayed at a central location where it may be readily seen and read by workers and handlers. The WPS does require that the active ingredients be included in the list of recent applications, but this information can be added to the use report; an additional piece of paper is unnecessary. 3. The greenhouse ventilation criteria set by the WPS were based on data available at the time the rule was written. EPA has asked California Department of Pesticide Regulation to provide any information that would allow the Agency to expand the list of available options, but so far DPR has not chosen to do so. --Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US EPA Region 9 From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Jul 19 08:24:20 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA02355 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 1994 08:24:19 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id IAA07185; Tue, 19 Jul 1994 08:24:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199407191524.IAA07185@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8817; Tue, 19 Jul 94 08:23:56 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 8402; Tue, 19 Jul 94 08:20:10 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 0384; Tue, 19 Jul 94 11:19:57 EDT Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 11:18:09 EDT From: AFRENCH%ERS.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Decontamination site location To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: A recent message incorrectly stated the WPS requirement for the location of a decontamination site: < The WPS requires that decontamination facilities be within mile of where > < workers are working, . . . > The WPS provides: 170.150(c) Location. (1) The decontamination site shall be reasonably accessible to and not more than 1/4 mile from where workers are working. 57 Fed. Reg. 163 @ 38161 (August 21, 1992)Y. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jul 19 10:57:37 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.102] (gia5mac22.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.102]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA14967 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 1994 10:57:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199407191757.KAA14967@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 10:58:03 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: more on decontamination requirements The recent messages from Kay and Al about location of decontamination facilities got me to wondering about the context of the "1/4 mile rule." So partly to get for myself more info on WPS decontamination requirements and partly to see if the archive is as useful as I have cracked it up to be, I downloaded (via "GET" command) the file wps.fr6, copied it into a Word 5.0 document, machine searched for "decontamination site shall", and was promptly taken to the very passage Al quoted. Glad to report that the system works, and hope that the section below, which surrounds the indicated passage, is of interest to some others among us who have been unfamiliar with this part of the WPS. =A7 170.150 Decontamination. (a) Requirement. If any worker on an agricultural establishment performs any activity in an area where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect and contacts anything that has been treated with the pesticide, including, but not limited to, soil, water, or surfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall provide, in accordance with this section, a decontamination site for washing off pesticide residues. (b) General conditions. (1) The agricultural employer shall provide workers with enough water for routine washing and emergency eyeflushing. At all times when the water is available to workers, the employer shall assure that it is of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. (2) When water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it shall not be used for decontamination or eyeflushing, unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank. (3) The agricultural employer shall provide soap and single use towels at each decontamination site in quantities sufficient to meet workers' needs. (4) To provide for emergency eyeflushing, the agricultural employer shall assure that at least 1 pint of water is immediately available to each worker who is performing early-entry activities permitted by =A7 170.112 and for which the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear. The eyeflush water shall be carried by the early=1Eentry worker, or shall be on the vehicle the early entry worker is using, or shall be otherwise immediately accessible. [38161] (c) Location. (1) The decontamination site shall be reasonably accessible to and not more than 1/4 mile from where workers are working. (2) For worker activities performed more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular access: (i) The soap, single-use towels, and water may be at the nearest place of vehicular access. (ii) The agricultural employer may permit workers to use clean water from springs, streams, lakes, or other sources for decontamination at the remote work site, if such water is more accessible than the water at the decontamination site located at the nearest place of vehicular access. (3) The decontamination site shall not be in an area being treated with pesticides. (4) The decontamination site shall not be in an area that is under a restricted-entry interval, unless the workers for whom the site is provided are performing early-entry activities permitted by =A7 170.112 and involving contact with treated surfaces and the decontamination site would otherwise not be reasonably accessible to those workers. (d) Decontamination after early-entry activities. At the end of any exposure period for workers engaged in early-entry activities permitted by =A7 170.112 and involving contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the restricted-entry interval applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air, or surfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall provide, at the site where the workers remove personal protective equipment, soap, clean towels, and a sufficient amount of water so that the workers may wash thoroughly. Howard Rosenberg University of California, Berkeley From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Jul 19 22:54:38 1994 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA07040 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 1994 22:54:36 -0700 Received: from localhost by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id BAA03242; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 01:54:05 -0400 Date: 20 Jul 94 01:50:31 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: California Draft Regulation Changes Message-ID: <940720055031_73507.555_HHB53-1@CompuServe.COM> CCR Section 6761 - Hazard Communication The cover letter with WHS 94-3 says that the draft regulations assume a positive response to California request for general equivalency. After reading the draft regulations I wonder what became of equivalence for California's existing hazard communication program. The California program requires that more information be kept for a longer period and "made available" to employees. U.S.EPA is apparently adamant that the information be displayed. CDPR has apparently acceded to that demand and somehow concluded that this is not going to be a significant change. While the posting of the application specific information may work in many agricultural situations, I have doubts about the practical implementation of this system in a vegetable production area such as Monterey County. The first question is, what does "at a central location accessible to employees" mean? A typical ranch producing vegetables may be 200 to 300 acres in size and have 10 to 30 lots or sub-lots. The only sort of "central location" would be an equipment yards with perhaps a shop or barn. The grower has only a few employees on the ranch responsible mostly for irrigation and cultivation. All other activities are performed by labor contractors, harvesting companies, fertilizer and pesticide applicators and pest control advisors. None of these report to any central location. They go directly to the field. There does not seem to be any appropriate place on the ranch to display the information in such a way as to comply with the intent. Should the information be displayed at the growers office, which may be off the ranch? This is usually where the pesticide use records are kept now, in a file and perhaps in an automated system. Is the grower to post the same information outside the office that is required to be kept in the files inside the office, in the interest of increasing employee accessibility? I think that the proposed WPS system is much less effective than the current California system when the number of applications is large and field size is small and workers work in many fields. How is a worker going to walk up to this displayed information and find any particular field's records when the information is not organized? How are enforcement personnel to know if the information is being properly displayed? They will need to go to the file cabinet in the office or to the computer in order to get the information in a useful form. All agricultural pesticide use information is found in a data base of the Agricultural Commissioner. Plans to electronically transfer data from growers and PCOs to the Commissioner computer could reduce the data entry backlog to days. Now, on top of this organized and increasingly efficient system, the regulated public is asked to add a practically useless system. It will be less accessible than the current system in spite of being displayed because it is 1) not organized, 2) not retained long enough. I would like to know how the California Department of Pesticide Regulation will consider a "central location accessible to employees?" Is that going to be at the workplace or the worksite? Exactly what are the definitions of "workplace" and worksite" as they apply to different types of agricultural workers? I was surprised to see in the Statement of Reasons that CDPR did not consider the display of application specific information to be "a significant change in the California regulatory system." Maintaining and enforcing these duplicative and largely ineffective information posting systems will be a significant drain on the resources of growers and regulatory enforcement personnel. This is going to create mountains of new paperwork. Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Jul 19 22:57:29 1994 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA07609 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 1994 22:57:28 -0700 Received: from localhost by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id BAA03400; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 01:56:58 -0400 Date: 20 Jul 94 01:52:39 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: California Draft Regulations Changes Message-ID: <940720055239_73507.555_HHB53-2@CompuServe.COM> CCR Section 6618 - Notice of Applications With the proposed changes, workers who are within one quarter mile of a field during a restricted entry interval must be notified, rather than the previous California standard of all who were likely to enter the field. Field posting satisfies this requirement except when the labeling requires both written and oral posting. In a vegetable producing area ranches and field size are small. This means that virtually every worker on a ranch will be within one quarter mile of every other field. Also, one or more of the many lots on the ranch is likely to have had an application requiring oral warnings. Many different labor providers are on the ranch and they operate on more than one ranch on most days. Labor contractors, harvesting companies and others show up at the field where they will work. All of these crews may need to hear all of the information listed in paragraph (c) for every field on the ranch subject to the warning even if their work keeps them substantially confined to the area of one field. It could take some minutes to recite all this information, most of which has nothing to do with the tasks of the workers. Providing it is a logistical nightmare. Most growers have more than one ranch and deal with many independent business that have crews on the ranches. It is a dynamic situation. I feel this is an undue burden on growers. They will be forced to go to great lengths to comply. The information provided will be of little more interest to the workers than the airline safety speech is to he seasoned flyer, who is thinking of something else while being told how to buckle and unbuckle the seatbelt. If the field is posted, it means "keep out." Why should somebody have to tell for example a lettuce thinning crew about such things as "care of personal protective equipment required for early entry into treated fields, and the prevention, recognition and first aid for heat stress" related to another field a quarter of a mile away on the other side of the ranch? That crew is not going to leave the field they are working in. They really only need to know to not go into any fields other than those where directed and never go into a posted field. What will suffice for "the location and description of the treated area?" Telling someone that lot 5a has been treated is not useful information unless that person understands where lot 5a is located. There are no signs on the lots. Could they point to "that broccoli field over there" and so identify it? There might be some confusion. Must a map be employed to show the workers where they are and where the treated field is? Can they say, "You see that field with all the signs posted on it that say KEEP OUT? That is the field I am telling you not to enter. It was treated with..." This section is vague about when the information has to be provided. That could make enforcement difficult. Commonly used pesticides for which oral and written warnings are required (will there be more?): aldicarb carbofuran chloropicrin disulfoton metam-sodium methyl bromide methyl parathion paraquat propargite Five of the nine above applied to the soil, usually by injection. Little worker exposure is to be expected unless they dig up the material or break the tarpaulin. Referring to the Disyston 8 (disulfoton) label, it says to include under oral warnings, the "Precautionary Statements" and "reentry Statements" portions of the label. That is nine paragraphs long. What other information would be required by "applicable laws and regulations?" This is a lot of information that is required to be given. It is , in my opinion, not of any use to workers that are extremely unlikely to even go near the field that was treated with disulfoton and would probably need a shovel to dig up treated soil. Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From PBAKER@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Wed Jul 20 11:53:57 1994 Received: from Milori.CCIT.Arizona.EDU (Milori.CCIT.Arizona.EDU [128.196.120.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA28978 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 11:53:57 -0700 From: PBAKER@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Received: from CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU by CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (PMDF V4.3-7 #2381) id <01HEXFAR7X0W8WWID7@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 11:53:42 MST Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 11:53:42 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: California Draft Regulation Changes To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HEXFAR86O28WWID7@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Robert, this as Paul Baker in Arizona, and you have asked some excellent questions. Which I will watch and wait for some answers. But I have one for us all and that is how is one to display pesticide record at the central location for 30 days after the re-entry interval has expired. I have a feel- ing the walls will be covered with paper. Keep the lines open From relane@ucdavis.edu Thu Jul 21 14:36:59 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.1.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA18444 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:36:58 -0700 From: relane@ucdavis.edu Received: from (null) by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id OAA10127; Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:36:22 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:36:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199407212136.OAA10127@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: REENTRY MADNESS For the past month of so I have monitored the network dialogue concerning the federal Worker Protection Standard (WPS). While there has been much talk concerning implememtation and training, very little criticism has been leveled. I find this particularly surprising in regard to the minimum reentry intervals defined by the WPS and the negative impact it will have on many agricultural producers. Reentry intervals defined in the WPS are not supported by scientific evidence and are based on faulty logic. To start with, the criteria for determining reentry intervals is arbitrary. Regardless of the chemical nature of the pesticide, category 1 materials will require a reentry interval of 48 hours. Likewise category 2 materials will require a reentry interval of 24 hours and category 3 materials will require a 12 hour reentry interval. What scientific evidence supports basing reentry intervals by hazard classification? What scientific proof is there to say that 48 hours is the proper reentry interval for category 1 materials and that 12 hours is appropriate for category 3 materials? Is it logical to assume that it is more dangerous to reenter 24 hours after a field has been sprayed with a category 1 pesticide than if a category 3 pesticide had been used? There are many category 1 materials that although they may start off being highly toxic, dissipate much more rapidly in the environment than many category 3 materials. It is also likely that category 3 pesticides exist that pose a greater health risk from chronic exposure than category 1 materials. This arbitrary method of determining reentry intervals, will recklessly damage many agricultural enterprises, while doing little to protect workers and the public. I have heard it argued that the purpose behind the new reentry intervals is to encourage the use of the less acutely toxic category 3 materials. The fact that it may be perfectly safe to enter an area 12 or 24 hours after treatment with a category 1 pesticide may not be important to the authors of the WPS, as it appears they're primarily concerned with discouraging the use of the more acutely toxic category 1 pesticides. The fact that a category 1 pesticide may be less persistent in the environment and pose less of a health risk from chronic exposure than certain category 3 pesticides, is apparently not important. The logic behind defining reentry intervals based on this premise, is only concerned about discouraging the use of chemicals with a relatively high acute toxicity. I agree that in many instances the WPS will accomplish this goal. On the other hand, the total number of pesticide applications will probably increase and within the category 3 group of pesticides the more toxic ones are likely to see the greatest use. Most growers prefer to use pesticides that are safer to use and only resort to using the more toxic materials because they often do a better job. If these growers decide to use a less toxic category 2 or 3 pesticide, they will probably kill fewer insects and need to spray more frequently at higher concentrations. Within the group of category 3 pesticides, the least toxic products such as the insecticidal soaps, horticultural spray oils and Bacillus thurengiensis products will probably be less used. These materials can compliment biological pest control programs, but often require frequent applications. Why make two applications of Safer Soap a week, when one application of Orthene or Seven will do a better job with less restriction on reentry? From the logic outlined above, it is apparent that the WPS will not accomplish any goal it may have of reducing the use of toxic pesticides and may in fact accomplish the opposite. The science of determining when a negligible risk exists, should be the determining factor in deciding when it is safe to enter an area treated with a pesticide. Perhaps the criteria for defining the conditions that constitute a negligible risk needs further refinement in order to better protect agricultural workers. Maybe it's defined adequately already. I don't know. But I do know that this is the most intelligent and responsible way to deal with reentry intervals. Ron Lane Department of Environmental Horticulture University of California at Davis Cc: From 73507.555@compuserve.com Fri Jul 22 00:57:49 1994 Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.7.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA03562 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 00:57:48 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id DAA04767; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 03:57:17 -0400 Date: 22 Jul 94 03:55:20 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: California Proposed Regulations Message-ID: <940722075520_73507.555_HHB35-1@CompuServe.COM> Section 6738(i)(6) - Why is respiratory protection not required to be worn in an enclosed cockpit? This does not seem consistent with the exceptions in 170.240 of the WPS. I was under the impression that respiratory protection could only be omitted of the enclosed cab or cockpit provided equivalent respiratory protection. 6760(b) - What about attractants or repellents in dispensers that are not traps? Should these applications be afforded the same exceptions? An example would be the pheremone "rope" dispensers such as those used in artichokes. 6768 - Has anyone checked Section 5474.26 et seq of the Health and Safety Code? I think this section has been renumbered. 6770(a) - Please do not incorporate 40 CFR part 170.112 by reference. It only confounds the regulated public. They should be told clearly in the regulations what they have to do without having to locate some other code section from federal law. Spell it out. From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Jul 24 21:28:05 1994 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA24901 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 1994 21:28:04 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id AAA23774; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 00:27:33 -0400 Date: 25 Jul 94 00:24:00 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: California Proposed Regulation Changes Message-ID: <940725042400_73507.555_HHB47-1@CompuServe.COM> Section 6762, Field Work During Pesticide Application This proposed regulation could really help the crew vs. Pest Control Operator conflict. It is common in some areas for labor crews to encroach on pest control operations. When a helicopter is in the middle of an application, a bus full of workers pulls up to the next field. They sometimes seem to dare the pilot to continue. Not being able to complete an application when planned because of crews in the area is a big problem. Some days a pilot may only complete one quarter of the work because of crews. They will pass on any job rather than take a remote risk of drifting on a crew. The crew leaders know this and will use the liability of the pilot to control the situation. With this proposed regulation I would think that a labor contractor would be in violation if his or her crew encroached on an application. The only problem is that 100 feet is far to short a buffer for an aerial application. It should be 300 feet, minimum. Also, when "the pesticide is applied in a nursery by aircraft..." I think the prohibited area should be the entire closed area. What are they using, ultra-lights? That must be dangerous. Robert A. Roach 73507.555@Compuserve.com From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Jul 24 21:36:51 1994 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA26517 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 1994 21:36:49 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id AAA24137; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 00:36:18 -0400 Date: 25 Jul 94 00:33:03 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Reentry Madness Message-ID: <940725043303_73507.555_HHB64-1@CompuServe.COM> Ron Lane posted a message about the rather arbitrary restricted entry intervals imposed by the WPS. I am under the impression that U.S. EPA considers these to be interim intervals. If sufficient data is produced, a permanent interval will be set (under 40 CFR Part 158.) I just re-read the Statement of Reasons and I am still not clear about this. Are 12, 24 and 48/72 the minimum restricted entry intervals or could lesser intervals be established by Part 158? Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Mon Jul 25 05:13:46 1994 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA24078 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 05:13:45 -0700 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA16567; Mon, 25 Jul 94 08:13:39 -0400 Message-Id: <9407251213.AA16567@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 08:13 EDT From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Re: California Draft Regulation Changes To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <01HEXFAR86O28WWID7@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU> In response to Paul Baker's message on displaying information: According to Lou True at Feb. 4, 1994 meeting on WPS implementation, a 3-ring binder (or, presumably, something similar) containing the required information would meet the requirement for "display" of information. WPS does not require that items be posted on a bulletin board. From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Mon Jul 25 05:40:13 1994 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA26579 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 05:40:12 -0700 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA18627; Mon, 25 Jul 94 08:40:04 -0400 Message-Id: <9407251240.AA18627@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 08:40 EDT From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Reentry Madness To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <940725043303_73507.555_HHB64-1@CompuServe.COM> In response to the question on whether reentry times can be shorter than 12 hours, it has been my impression that times could certainly be shorter as long as good data support the decision. From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Jul 26 22:23:03 1994 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA16038 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 22:23:00 -0700 Received: from localhost by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id BAA04294; Wed, 27 Jul 1994 01:22:29 -0400 Date: 27 Jul 94 01:19:12 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Field Work During Pesticide Applications Message-ID: <940727051912_73507.555_HHB53-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply to Roy Rutz, CDPR Roy, I should have read the definition of a nursery! Since that is what you meant to mean, this (CCR Section 6762) does not apply to workers on a farm, only in a nursery. Why should workers employed on a farm have a lower standard of protection than those employed on a nursery? For farm workers the prohibited area is only the treated area while for nursery workers, for an aerial application it is 100 feet. Can a farm worker work on the edge of a treated area during an aerial application? That would not make sense. Am I getting this right? The justification given in the Statement of Reasons is as follows. It says that "In greenhouses and nurseries production areas are often close together. Plants requiring different pesticide treatments and hand labor schedules may occupy the same bench or bed." Then they go on to define sod farms and Christmas tree farms as nurseries. I think that vegetable crop production, e.g. Central Coast, is similar to the nursery situation. It is certainly closer to the above quoted characterization than any sod farm or tree farm I have seen. Field sizes are small and there is a lot of labor activity. These definitions for "farm" and "nursery" do not adequately cover all situations found in California agriculture. There are workers on farms that could experience the same risk as those in a nursery and they are not afforded the same protection regarding restrictions associated with applications. This standard should be evenly applied. Also, the distances are too short. Would you approach to 100 feet from an aerial application? A pilot here would have stopped before you got within 500 feet and a guy in a white pick-up truck would be asking you to go away for a while. Robert Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Jul 28 22:22:12 1994 Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.7.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA10641 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 1994 22:22:11 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id BAA28472; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:21:40 -0400 Date: 29 Jul 94 01:18:25 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: California Hazard Communication Program Message-ID: <940729051825_73507.555_HHB62-1@CompuServe.COM> In my opinion, CDPR should vigorously defend the California hazard communication program. It is superior to the federal standard. Anyone who examines the program can see that it works. The information is readily available to employees. Why don't you send some workers to ask for the information and see how quickly they get it? Some comments were made years ago in the rulemaking process and because of those opinions that workers may be intimidated, we are being forced into an inferior system designed by those having no familiarity with California agriculture. I know that the WPS system will not work as well as the current system in Monterey County. I do not understand why CDPR as apparently ceded key points of the equivalency of the California hazard communication program and is trying to defend lessor elements like PSIS A-8 and A-9. If that is all that is left and growers are required to display the information as per the WPS, then all of the California system should be scrapped and we should apply only the federal system. eliminate PSIS A-8, A-9, crop sheets and availability of the records to employees for two years. Use the federal safety posters and display the application information for 30 days. Growers should not have to duplicate efforts to provide information to employees. One system that works is enough. Would a computer terminal with a menu-driven program, such as is found in any library, satisfy the requirement of displaying the information? Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Jul 29 13:30:00 1994 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA12356 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:29:58 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:30:21 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:30:04 -0700 To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: With reference to the implementation of the WPS in California; there have been several postings that With reference to the implementation of the WPS in California; there have been several postings that made reference to draft proposed regulations released as an attachment to a letter to agricultural commissioners identified as WHS 94-3. This entire package including, letter, draft Initial Statement of Reasons, and regulation text has been placed in the WPS-FORUM archive.in a file named 'calprop1.doc". It is saved in binary form as a Word document rather than as an ASCII file. The Discussion Draft of Changes in the California Code of Regulations relies on its special formatting (underline, strike-through, bold) to convey meaning, especially to indicate deleted and added text. When the file is converted to ASCII from its original format, Word for Windows, it loses its special format features and becomes a mish-mash of words with nothing to distinguish among words added, deleted, and retained from existing regulations. As a Word document,the file can be retrieved with the usual "GET" command, like all other files in archive, but it has to be treated differently upon arrival. ListProc automatically uuencodes the file before emailing, since binary files don't survive being emailed. Therefore, the receiver has to first uudecode the file and then import it into Word--or a similar word processing package with convertor--to get it back as originally formatted. Many email programs (commercial version of Eudora, for example) take care of the uudecoding step automatically when they sense a binary file and may even deal with the second by calling into play Word or a similar word processing package with convertor. If one's email package doesn't uudecode files (a number of the common PC email programs do, however) there are some alternatives. Any unix computer has uudecode available, the Macintosh program Stuffit will uudecode files, and some PC programs also will uudecode. If you can't handle this situation, you may follow the instructions below to be sent a hard copy directly from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Pesticide Regulation 1020 N Street, Room 200 WHS 94-03 Sacramento, California 95814 June 28, 1994 TO: COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: Draft Regulation Changes to Implement the Federal Worker Protection Standards (WPS) in California Attached is a discussion draft of proposed regulation changes being developed to implement the USEPA WPS in California. This document is being distributed to inform you of our current plans and to solicit unofficial comments and suggestions that will be considered before the action is officially noticed. Also attached is a draft Initial Statement of Reasons to provide you with additional information about the specific basis and purpose of the changes. These documents address those portions of Title 3, California Code of Regulations that have been identified as requiring change to implement the Federal WPS in California. Requests for general equivalency or enforcement discretion are being prepared to address specific requirements where it is felt that adoption of the federal requirements would adversely affect the California pesticide regulatory program. These draft documents assume a positive response to our requests. Other portions of California's comprehensive pesticide regulatory program are believed to meet the remaining requirements. There have also been industry petitions for exceptions to some of the restricted entry interval restrictions. These draft documents do not reflect those petitions except for the rose harvesting exception already granted by the USEPA. The USEPA has indicated that it believes that any unworkable aspects involving reentry restrictions can be handled through the exception process. These drafts contain provision for implementing any USEPA approved exceptions. Congress has enacted and the president has signed legislation that delayed implementation of most of part 170 CFR until January 1, 1995. It is planned that these regulation changes will be adopted to be effective on that date. You are encouraged to share this information with those you think may be interested and might wish to make a positive contribution. We are required by the USEPA to make changes that will bring each requirement up to the minimum federal standards. Despite this requirement, we do have some flexibility in how we achieve this goal. If you have any questions, or to provide comments, contact either Robert Chavez of the Enforcement Branch at 916/445-3886, or Roy Rutz of the Worker Health and Safety Branch at 916/445-4279. We would like to officially notice this action by the end of August so comments should be submitted as soon as possible. Sincerely, John Donahue, Chief Charles M. Andrews, Chief Worker Health and Safety Branch Pesticide Enforcement Branch Attachments ________________________ Titles 3 and 26 California Code of Regulations Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations pertaining to IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDS DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY (6/28/94) This document addresses those portions of Title 3, California Code of Regulations that have been identified as requiring change to implement the Federal Worker Protection Standards (WPS) in California. Other portions of California's comprehensive pesticide regulatory program are believed to meet the remaining requirements. Requests for general equivalency or enforcement discretion are being prepared to address specific requirements where it is felt that adoption of the federal requirements would adversely affect the California pesticide regulatory program. These requests focus on the areas of: 1. using the California pesticide use record/reporting system to meet portions of the WPS application specific information requirements; 2. using Pesticide Safety Information Series leaflets A-8 & 9 to meet the safety poster requirements; 3. continuing to use the California field posting sign "skull and crossbones" format in lieu of the WPS "hand and face" format;; 4. allowing more flexibility in the greenhouse ventilation criteria; and 5. using the California "current use season" definition of treated field rather than the WPS standard of "REI+30 days". Congress has enacted and the president has signed legislation that delays implementation of most of part 170 CFR until January 1, 1995. It is planned that these regulation changes will be adopted to be effective on that date. USEPA has recently adopted an exception to allow the harvesting of cut roses during an REI. This exception is reflected in this draft. New proposed wording is shown by underlining and existing wording proposed for deletion is shown by strikeout. Existing wording that would be retained is either shown in normal type or noted for consideration in bold type. There is a draft Initial Statement of Reasons available as a companion document that provides additional information about this action. *** THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING FORMATTED ATTACHMENTS, IS IN THE WPS-FORUM AS A WORD FILE NAMED "calprop1.doc" *** Roy Rutz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------