From Charles.Hesselein@acenet.auburn.edu Tue Nov 1 12:55:17 1994 Received: from acenet.auburn.edu (aces1.acenet.auburn.edu [131.204.46.253]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA08927 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 1994 12:55:16 -0800 Received: by acenet.auburn.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1 aces1 1.0) id AA28487; Tue, 1 Nov 94 14:55:14 CST Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:55:13 -0600 (CST) From: Charles Hesselein X-Sender: chessele@aces1 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Spot spraying of herbicides in container nurseries Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Weed control in container nurseries is an important part of regular pest maintenance. Many growers have employees who are dedicated to spot spraying weeds in their production areas. These employees roam the nursery spraying weeds as they are encountered. While visiting a local grower I asked how they were going to comply with WPS and continue with their "spot spraying" weed control program. Their reply was that they didn't know how they would be able to comply with WPS rules and continue their present weed control program. I don't see this type of herbicide application as posing a significant threat to workers' health. This task is performed daily over large areas of the nursery. It is impractical to post and restrict access to these large areas especially since herbicides are being applied to only a tiny fraction of them. Any ideas as to how these growers can comply and still maintain a high level of weed control. From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Tue Nov 1 15:20:07 1994 Received: from exnet.iastate.edu (exnet.iastate.edu [129.186.107.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA14164 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 1994 15:20:06 -0800 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA21373; Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:20:15 -0500 Message-Id: <9411012220.AA21373@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Nov 1994 17:20:02 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) X-Mailer: Recently I received several new WPS pesticide labels. In the past, these labels required the use of "chemically resistant" gloves and now they require the use of something called "waterproof gloves". Why is this new term being used and what exactly does it mean under WPS. Do we still recommend chemically resistant gloves or is something else more appropriate? Thanks for any input. Wendy Wintersteen Extension Entomologist Iowa State University From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Nov 1 17:42:46 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.92] (gia5mac12.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.92]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA18517 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:42:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199411020142.RAA18517@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:42:59 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: More on Gloves, Linings, Sweat & Dermatitis >"We are encountering a problem with section 170.240c5. It prohibits the >use of linings with waterproof gloves unless specifically allowed on the >label. > >"In the past, applicators had used cotton glove with a rubber-like coating. >Due to the new standard, rubber gloves were issued since linings are not >allowed. The applicators' hands get totally soaked within an hour, and >thereafter, are working in a "pool" of water. We have tried skin >protection creams and other protectants but they do not hold up with the >excessive moisture. Within days, some applicators' hands started to turn >red, indicating the start of dermatitis problems. Charlie Nagamine described this situation in a September 7 message with subject line "Gloves, Linings, Sweat & Dermatitis." Several responses to it were subsequently posted. A physician who has recently reviewed the discussion offers the advice below from a medical, not legal, perspective. --------------------------------- This is a tough problem, and obviously a lot of people have given it considerable thought. Some of these suggestions have been made already, but the most rational strategy for protection of these workers would be as follows: 1. As others have suggested, wear cotton liners under gloves (e.g., low-cost cotton gardening gloves such as available at Safeway for about $1.50/pair). 2. Change cotton liners at least once during the work day, perhaps at lunch break. 3. Add astringent powder to cotton liners before putting them on. The most astringent product is Zeasorb, but it is expensive. Generic talcum powder is a reasonable alternative. 4. After work, rinse hands thoroughly in cool water, using oilated soap (e.g., Dove). 5. Apply a layer of petroleum jelly to hands after bathing in evening. 6. For all personal hygiene, use cool water and oilated soaps (protect the barrier!). I've tried to keep these recommendations as simple, inexpensive, and practical as possible. These steps would be particularly useful for individuals with "sensitive" skin (roughly 20-40% of the population--I'm not sure about farm workers specifically). Peter M. Elias, M.D. Chief, Dermatology Service, V.A. Medical Center, San Francisco Professor and Vice-Chairman, Dept. of Dermatology, Univ. of California, SF From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Wed Nov 2 05:32:11 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 FAA26528 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 05:32:09 -0800 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #3240) id <01HIZWYC6C5Y935T8V@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Wed, 02 Nov 1994 08:31:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 1994 08:31:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: waterproof gloves To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HIZWYC6C60935T8V@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 Wendy, waterproof gloves are one of three broad categories of glove statements found on WPS revised labels. The other categories are "chemical resistant gloves" and "chemical resistant gloves such as butyl or nitrile." Water proof gloves refer to any rubber or plastic gloves sturdy enough to remian intact throughout the task being performed. Norm Nesheim, Pesticide Information Coord., Univ. of Florida From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Wed Nov 2 10:16:09 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 KAA02356 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 10:16:09 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id KAA08014; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 10:16:07 -0800 Message-Id: <199411021816.KAA08014@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0234; Wed, 02 Nov 94 10:14:27 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 2703; Wed, 02 Nov 94 10:12:21 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 6260; Wed, 02 Nov 94 13:13:43 EST Date: Wed, 02 Nov 94 13:10:26 EST From: Al French Subject: Labeling specifications - gloves To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On 1 Nov 1994 Wendy Wintersteen said: < Recently I received several new WPS pesticide labels. In the past, these > < labels required the use of "chemically resistant" gloves and now they > < require the use of something called "waterproof gloves". Why is this new > < term being used and what exactly does it mean under WPS. > EPA revised the labeling requirements for registrants concurrent with the issuance of the WPS. Glove specifications, among other things, were changed to specify "waterproof gloves" for water-based formulations and "chemical-resistant (such as nitrile or butyl) gloves" for non-water-based (and gaseous) formulations. The new rule requires that the term "chemical resistant" must be substituted for formerly used terms such as "liquidproof," "rubber," "natural rubber," "vinyl," "synthetic rubber," "impervious," "neoprene," "plastic," "impermeable," or "nonporous." While the above will be the general specification, the rule also provides that any previously existing statement which is either more protective or that is prohibitive must be continued. Considering the existence of exceptions to the generic glove specifications, it seems that users may have no alternative but to examine the current label on each package and act accordingly. There may still be product around whose labels have not yet been revised. Thus, the specifications listed on a label today may be different from what will appear on the next shipment. Details of the new labeling requirements for PPE may be found in the Federal Register of August 21, 1992 @ 38148. I'm not sure whether the 1992 revisions are in the Code of Federal Regulations yet, but if so, it will be found at 40 CFR Part 156, Subpart K. I hope this helps. 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 From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Wed Nov 2 11:37:00 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 LAA05275 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 11:36:58 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HJ099PEJWG8X9F79@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 02 Nov 1994 14:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HJ094DV4Y88Y799Y@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 02 Nov 1994 14:15:15 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 14:14:17 EST MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Wed, 02 Nov 1994 14:14:17 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 02 Nov 1994 13:50:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: RE: More on Gloves, Linings, Sweat & Dermatitis To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HJ09518O388Y799Y@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, 02 Nov 1994 14:13:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;71414120114991/1935183@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Peter: Thank you for your thoughtful response concerning glove liners and the advice provided. 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. First, Charlie Nagamine described a "dipped" glove in his question. Consider this point: If water vapor is penetrating through the glove (since the hands are remaining dry throughout the day, this must be the case), it also means that vapor from pesticides may also penetrate the gloves. This means that breakthrough happened, and exposure is occurring, even though liquids have not "broken through". By the time gloves show obvious signs of chemical degradation, i.e. color change, bubbling, wrinkling, holes, etc., all resistance to and protection from the challenge substance (pesticide) was lost long before the appearance of these symptoms. We are also concerned about contamination and decontamination. It is very difficult to remove all pesticide/herbicide contamination from the lumen of cotton fibers. Some chemicals are bound and tightly held by cotton than others, also. There are data available to suggest that it is more difficult to decontaminate cotton when a mixture of pesticide contaminants are present also. For this reason, cotton is not desirable as a liner, flocking, etc. The human element also figures into our decision. I have examined and toured many greenhouse and other agricultural facilities. Time and time again, people not only do not dispose of their disposable gloves, but wear them repeatedly. We feel that glove liners would be a similar situation, and they would serve as longterm sources of pesticide exposure. Judy Smith US EPA From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Nov 2 11:52:58 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.39] (gia3mac29.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.39]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA05670 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 11:52:56 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 11:52:58 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: message from Roy Rutz A message came in from ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov in a 10 minute time period that I had the system down for maintenance yesterday and it wasn't delivered, so here it is now. signed, Dana Keil, A.R.E. Mailing List Manager --------- re-sent message follows ----- I have been on vacation for the past three weeks and am trying to catch up. In response to the question about the county pipeline workers and REIs. Howard's response (So my lay reading, Zach, is that you would be obligated in California to inform the county workers about any dusting, spraying, and REIs in effect during their project, but then it would be up to them to decide what to do with that information. ) is basically correct. In addition, however the applicator is subject to 3 CCR, section 6614 which would prevent applications from being made "when persons are so nearby there is a hazard of contamination of their body or clothing". I would suggest the parties talk it over and work things out without getting government involved. No harm-no foul. Roy, DPR From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Nov 2 12:49:17 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.99] (gia5mac19.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.99]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA07477 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 12:49:14 -0800 Message-Id: <199411022049.MAA07477@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 12:49:28 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: formal response to NASDA petition Mark Nestlen, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, has provided a copy of the letter below. It is EPA's official response to the NASDA petition to revise the WPS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES October 21, 1994 October 26, 1994 (stamped date) (stamped Received-NASDA) Mr. Rick Perry Chairman, NASDA Worker Protection Task Force Commissioner, Texas Department of Agriculture 1156 - 15th Street Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Perry: On July 8, 1994, you submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a petition for rulemaking to revise portions of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The petition requested rulemaking be completed by January 1, 1995, in nine distinct areas. This letter represents the Agency's formal response to the petition. I also have addressed issues raised in the petition in my September 22, 1994, letter to you and my September 30 and October 7, 1994, letters to Mr. Richard Kirchhoff of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). The Agency is committed to working with you and all stakeholders in implementing a program that meets the WPS goal of protecting the four million farmworkers of this country. Toward this end, the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has made every effort to work with your organization and others to address many of the issues raised in your petition. Since your petition requests the Agency to engage in rulemaking, we should note that WPS rulemaking is subject to the requirements of both the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the risk/benefit standard contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The same risk/benefit standard applies to the WPS exception process. The Agency will be in a position to amend the rule or grant an exception when changes are supported by a public record compiled before the end of a public comment period. Only with this information is the Agency able to grant some or all of the proposed amendments or exceptions. We have carefully considered your request to engage in further rulemaking. Our responses to the specific requests made in your petition follow: A. Timing of Agriculture Worker Training The Agency has drafted a proposed rule that will address the issues of the training grace period and retraining intervals raised in this portion of your petition. The Agency hopes to publish the proposed rule for comment in the very near future, and to conclude the rulemaking early in 1995. As on all issues, EPA hopes NASDA will provide its views and supporting information on the grace period and retraining intervals during the comment period that will be part of this rulemaking. B. Low Contact Activities The Agency has drafted a proposed exception that will address the issue of early entry requirements for workers performing low-contact irrigation-related tasks, and hopes to publish that proposal for comment in the very near future. Additional supporting information during the comment period may be necessary in order for some or all of the exception to be granted. In addition, the Agency has met with you, and will continue to meet with you to determine whether additional exceptions should be proposed for particular early entry tasks which may result in little contact with pesticide residue and whether an amendment to the rule should be proposed that deals with low-contact issues generically. C. Establish RIE's Based on Actual Exposure The Agency will be publishing in the near future a draft Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) for public comment which would allow pesticide registrants to reduce the restricted entry intervals for many products in toxicity categories 3 and 4 from 12 hours to 4 hours. These will be products that are not known to cause chronic health risks. The Agency hopes to reach a final decision on this PRN before January 1, 1995. The proposal will address many of the changes proposed in your matrix for Tox 3 and 4 products. We believe that you will concur with this approach. However, you may wish to resubmit this portion of your petition, to the extent you believe changes remain necessary, after the Agency issues the final PRN. D. Crop Advisors The Agency intends to issue a proposed rule for comment addressing WPS crop advisor provisions before January 1. The WPS will be fully implemented on January 1 with provisions for crop advisors that are likely to be more stringent than those that will be proposed. The Agency therefore intends to issue guidance to States concerning appropriate enforcement before final changes are made. E. Duration of the Decontamination Facility Requirement The Agency supports the current thirty-day requirement based on supporting incident data demonstrating that worker poisonings have occurred from exposure to residues beyond thirty days after an application. I understand that you will resubmit this portion of your petition and I propose that we first meet in early November to review our supporting data. F. Employee Responsibility Regarding Protective Equipment The Agency will be meeting with NASDA on October 31, 1994, to discuss this issue. I hope these discussions resolve any concerns you may have. A determination on whether any proposed rulemaking is warranted on this issue will be made after discussions with NASDA have been completed. G. Broadening the Exception Process The Agency does not intend to take any action at this time to broaden the scope of the exception process. The exception process was created and limited to worker early entry because the Agency expected that there might be numerous requests for exceptions based on particular crop-growing needs and other circumstances. EPA does not anticipate site-specific problems with the WPS outside of early entry issues. Further, the exception process is similar to the rulemaking process. If anyone believes the WPS should be amended, a petition for rulemaking provides a procedure, similar to the exception process, to seek changes. At this time, we believe that the rulemaking process allows the Agency to deal adequately with situations where we need to consider changes to the WPS outside of exceptions to the early entry restrictions. We do not believe there is a demonstrated need for expanding the exception process at this time. However, we will reconsider this issue if need for expanding the exception process is established. H. Bilingual Requirements Your petition references the posting and training provision of the WPS. The training provision for workers and the pesticide handler do not contain requirements for bilingual training. The provisions do require that training be conducted "in a manner that the {trainee} can understand (such as through a translator) using nontechnical terms". This requirement is not limited to Spanish-speaking workers, and it certainly does not require that any training be available in Spanish if no Spanish-speaking workers are present. On a related issue, the Agency is working with the State of Hawaii to resolve whether the WPS field warning sign in that state could be printed with a second language other than Spanish because of the principal languages spoken by workers in Hawaii. We are working with the State to reach a satisfactory solution. I. Employer/Owner Liability As with the employee responsibility issue, the Agency will be meeting with NASDA to discuss employer/owner liability issues, and will determine whether any action is warranted after discussions with NASDA have been completed. If you have any questions concerning this response to your petition, please contact Penny Fenner-Crisp, Acting Deputy Director of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, on 703-305-7092. Sincerely, [signed] Lynn R. Goldman, M.D. Assistant Administrator cc: Richard W. Kirchhoff, NASA Executive Vice President James V. Aidala, Associate Assistant Administrator Dan Barolo, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs Penny Fenner-Crisp, Acting OPP Deputy Director Allan Abramson, Director, OPP Field Operations Division From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Wed Nov 2 13:46:45 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 NAA08943 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 13:46:45 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id NAA28387; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 13:46:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199411022146.NAA28387@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3037; Wed, 02 Nov 94 13:45:09 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7487; Wed, 02 Nov 94 13:45:08 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7577; Wed, 02 Nov 94 16:44:56 EST Date: Wed, 02 Nov 94 16:43:24 EST From: Al French Subject: REI in container nursery To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On 1 Nov 1994 Charles Hesselein said: < Weed control in container nurseries is an important part of regular pest > < maintenance. Many growers have employees who are dedicated to spot > < spraying weeds in their production areas. . . . This task is performed > < daily over large areas of the nursery. It is impractical to post and > < restrict access to these large areas especially since herbicides are > < being applied to only a tiny fraction of them. > < > < Any ideas as to how these growers can comply and still maintain a high > < level of weed control. > Here are some thoughts; I hope others have more. I'd appreciate feedback from your growers on feasibility under present restricted-entry intervals of 12 or 24 hours (for most herbicides) and also, what would be the case if the REIs were extended to, for example, 7 days or more. 1. Divide the nursery into two sections; apply herbicide only in one and do other work in the other; post the entire section being sprayed with flip over signage (over-posting is permissible, so long as it is enforced that way); alternate activities between the two sections. 2. Use only 12 hour REI herbicides; apply late afternoon; let the REI expire overnight. 3. Use non-chemical means to retard weed growth (e.g., mulch in container, sterilized planting medium) to reduce frequency of application; do other work Mon-Fri; spray on Saturday and allow REI to expire over weekend. 4. Establish a 4 plus 3 day workweek; regular work for 4 days at longer hours and applicator work for 3. 5. Substitute herbicides or combine with pre-emergent herbicide; get control that would allow a longer period between applications so that workaround becomes feasible. Cost implications? 6. Tolerate weeds for, say, 2 weeks; shut down regular operations every 2 weeks just for weed control. Would substitute herbicides enable this? 7. Could torches or mechanical devices be used in areas where plants were sturdy and weeds young and thereby reduce the need for herbicides to something manageable? Please, no wisecracks about melting pots! I realize some of this is far out. 8. Is competition with imports implicated? I am a former grower and I appreciate growers' reluctance to abandon successful practices. However, events are forcing change and new practices may be required. I'm very interested to learn from anyone on the list what new practices may and may not be feasible and how and if their cost effects can be minimized. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu P.S. Charles, on a serious note: Aren't the War Eagles ashamed of knocking the Gators out of number 1? :-( From 73507.555@compuserve.com Wed Nov 2 21:09:00 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 VAA18579 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 21:08:59 -0800 Received: from localhost by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id AAA08467; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 00:08:28 -0500 Date: 03 Nov 94 00:03:27 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: WPS Questions Message-ID: <941103050326_73507.555_HHB24-1@CompuServe.COM> There have been a number of interesting questions and I would like to respond to several of them. One was about workers (not ag workers) who would be working 25 feet from a vineyard that would be dusted with sulfur. Kay Rudolf points out that they are not covered under the WPS. I would point out that they are 25 feet from the vineyard and are not entering it therefore the reentry does not affect them. California regulations do not seem to clearly address non-agricultural workers who may enter a field. It does not come up frequently. CCR 6618 does require notice to persons, whoever they may be, who are likely to enter a treated area. This is broader than the federal WPS. California worker safety regulations apply to employees, but it does not specify which employees. It is pointless to speculate because the regulations are going to change but we do not know what the changes will be. This makes it very difficult for me because I work for an Agricultural Commissioner and have to implement these rules whenever they take effect. My one great opportunity to get growers together is at the end of the year when they come in to get their restricted material permits. That opportunity is going to be missed completely because other than worker training, I do not know what to tell them. Today I addressed a local Agricultural Advisory Committee on impacts of WPS in California. That is hard to say when we do not know exactly what the rules will be. I do not want to see any more drafts except the final one. Since the window of opportunity has already been missed for next year, I am no longer in any hurry. All the comments have been made and now we will have to see where the chips fall and deal with that whenever it happens. The question about spot herbicide spraying in nurseries is exemplary of WPS problems. I do not know what to tell this person. It is a low-risk activity that will require a lot of effort to comply with the WPS. It demonstrates that this one-size-fits-all rulemaking attitude of U.S EPA does not work for all the diverse situations that are present in the real world. This is a fundamental flaw that can only be solved by flexibility that is not forthcoming. In July of 1993 in "Scientific American" there was an excellent article on dealing with risk. I recommend that everyone read it. If I can get a copy in ASCII format, I will post some excerpts. Regarding computer programs to help growers to comply with the WPS, there are already numerous programs to track pesticide use. Many of these are being modified to output the required information for "display" or so I have heard. In California these programs are also being modified to output the data in a format that can be sent electronically to county ag commissioners to satisfy the state's requirement to report all agricultural use of pesticides. Monterey County will have its first participants on line this month. I would eventually hope to see electronic display of data meet the WPS hazard communication requirements. Can you imagine having a terminal in the lobby of the agricultural commissioner's office where workers could go to get specific pesticide use information? We could do this now. Lest we forget, where are the U.S. EPA worker training verification agreements? In the end of September, Chuck Andrews of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation stated in an enforcement letter that they would be forthcoming in several weeks. It is not that I am being besieged with requests, I just find it hard to explain why this has not been accomplished. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From 75222.2562@compuserve.com Fri Nov 4 16:04:43 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 QAA08431 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 1994 16:04:43 -0800 Received: from localhost by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id TAA12013; Fri, 4 Nov 1994 19:04:06 -0500 Date: 04 Nov 94 18:58:34 EST From: Doug Edwards <75222.2562@compuserve.com> To: Subject: epa pr notice 93-7 Message-ID: <941104235834_75222.2562_GHI106-1@CompuServe.COM> I recently received from one of our local chemical company reps a listing published by EPA of all pesticides by generic name with respirator requirements, product identification and REI's. This will be particularly helpful to me because it lists which chemicals come under the arid REI. The source of the listing was listed as EPA PR notice 93-7. Would it be possible for an ASCII version of this document to be posted on the WPS- Forum?? Thanks, Douglas Edwards Deputy Agricultural Commissioner From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Nov 4 19:16:11 1994 Received: from [136.152.71.67] (dana.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.71.67]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA12664 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 1994 19:16:06 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 19:16:12 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Re: REI in container nursery I am re-sending the following message from M. Shenk that was incorrectly rejected by the listproc software. Dana Keil, Mailing List Manager, Department of Ag & Res Econ, UC Berkeley ------ re-sent message follows ------ Al, I like the creative thinking you have shown in your suggested alternatives to the daily spraying of weeds in the nursery setting. Ed Peachy and colleagues in the Horticulture Department here at Oregon State University are following the lead of some farmers and researchers in Wisconsin and Minn., in using propane flamming for weed control in annual crops such as corn and beans. They are able to flame rather when crops and weeds are rather small, with considerable success. The degree of control varies with the weed species, so I think it is a very worth- while option to try in the nursery setting. I also like some of your other suggestions, and would enjoy hearing from persons who have tested them. You even asked . Now don't get too radical Al, don't challenge the old saying that the only good weed is a dead weed. I agree, we should be asking such questions as how many weeds can we tolerate, or how long can we postpone control frequencies and still prevent seed set which in turn might increase populations. By the way, it was not clear whether herbicides are being sprayed only on the ground, or also directly over plants. The latter case would complicate some of the options. But you have raised some very good ideas. Thanks. Myron Shenk, Oregon State U. Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From CBeytes@aol.com Mon Nov 7 07:08:34 1994 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA07262 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 07:08:30 -0800 From: CBeytes@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA18883; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:07:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:07:59 -0500 Sender: CBeytes@aol.com Message-Id: <9411071007582500873@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: D. Edward's request for EPA list Fellow WPS forum members, I'm Chris Beytes, managing editor of GrowerTalks magazine. In regards to Douglas Edwards' mention of the EPA's list of REI's, I've had Ron Oetting at the University of Georgia do an article on 12-hour reentry products labeled for greenhouse use. He based his findings on several charts he's received that list REIs by either compound, trade name, or both. Many such lists are circulating. One thing to watch out for: the REI for a compound MAY NOT be the same as that for a specific commercial product containing that compound. Ron found two discrepancies between the EPA's list and commercial products. Acephate, listed by the EPA as having a 12-hour REI, has a 24 hour REI when used in PT 1300 by Whitmire. And methiocarb, also listed by the EPA as a 12-hour compound, is 24 hours as the active ingredient in PT 1700. Conversely, sulfotepp and and nicotine, both listed as 48-hour products, are exempt from REIs when used as fumigant. Also, don't assume the toxicity category determines the REI. Many compounds with WARNING labels, such as Dursban, have only 12-hour reenty. Many people assume that a CAUTION compound is 12 hour, WARNING is 24 and DANGER is 48. This isn't so. What I'm getting at is advise growers to read the label. It's the final word on REI. The whole sordid mess just gets more and more confusing, doesn't it. Hope this helps someone, Chris Beytes Managing editor GrowerTalks From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Mon Nov 7 10:08:33 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 KAA10854 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:08:19 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 25522; Mon, 07 Nov 1994 14:02:42 +500 Date: Mon, 07 Nov 1994 14:02:41 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <009871D0.B22C3E80.25522@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: RE: epa pr notice 93-7 Just a note of caution that the list in the PR notice is only a guidline for manufacturer's when completing their labeling worksheet. REI's can be and already are longer on some products. This list is not a substitute for the label. Also, since REI's for WPS are based on certain types of worker exposures, the caution signal word does not mean that the REI will only be 12 hours. Joanne Kick-Raack Pesticide Training Ohio State University Extension From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Nov 7 10:09:57 1994 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA10893 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:09:46 -0800 Received: from ppp2.igc.org (ppp2.igc.org [198.94.6.2]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.51 ) with SMTP id KAA25008 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:09:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:09:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199411071809.KAA25008@mail.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@mail.igc.apc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: REI in container nursery X-Mailer: >On 1 Nov 1994 Charles Hesselein said: > >< Weed control in container nurseries is an important part of regular pest > >< maintenance. Many growers have employees who are dedicated to spot > >< spraying weeds in their production areas. . . . This task is performed > >< daily over large areas of the nursery. It is impractical to post and > >< restrict access to these large areas especially since herbicides are > >< being applied to only a tiny fraction of them. > >< > >< Any ideas as to how these growers can comply and still maintain a high > >< level of weed control. > > Al French Says: > Here are some thoughts; I hope others have more. I'd appreciate feedback >from your growers on feasibility under present restricted-entry intervals of >12 or 24 hours (for most herbicides) and also, what would be the case if the >REIs were extended to, for example, 7 days or more. A sort of humorous/not so funny note from an actual chemical label on Methomyl 5G insecticide (Florida, Georgia, and Alabama in Corn). The reentry period is 7 days, however, livestock can graze or eat treated plants in 3 days........ >2. Use only 12 hour REI herbicides; apply late afternoon; let the REI expire >overnight. Following this line of thought out of the nursery situation: That may work ok in some parts of the country, however, many herbicides should be applied in full sun to get best efficacy, will this impact efficacy to an economically significant level where more applications will actually be required? Some places, i.e. Florida where I'm from, dew forms about an hour prior to sunset, which decreases efficacy still further. This may be a really good strategy for insecticides though, since many critters (i.e. Fall Armyworm) may be more active at night, and better efficacy will result. >3. Use non-chemical means to retard weed growth (e.g., mulch in container, >sterilized planting medium) to reduce frequency of application; do other work >Mon-Fri; spray on Saturday and allow REI to expire over weekend. > >4. Establish a 4 plus 3 day workweek; regular work for 4 days at longer hours >and applicator work for 3. Might work in some worker training time here as well. >5. Substitute herbicides or combine with pre-emergent herbicide; get control >that would allow a longer period between applications so that workaround >becomes feasible. Cost implications? This is already done in field crops, and seems to work pretty well, economically speaking. >6. Tolerate weeds for, say, 2 weeks; shut down regular operations every 2 >weeks just for weed control. Would substitute herbicides enable this? > >7. Could torches or mechanical devices be used in areas where plants were >sturdy and weeds young and thereby reduce the need for herbicides to something >manageable? Please, no wisecracks about melting pots! I realize some of this >is far out. Looks like extension/private sector/academia/everybody else should be looking for economic thresholds to evaluate items 3-7. These may be cheaper solutions that treating workers for heat exaustion from 'moon suits'. >8. Is competition with imports implicated? This may be why Ross Perot invested so heavily in foreign NAFTA oriented businesses. Seriously, that's a really good point that should be evaluated in economic thresholds. /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 18665 127th Dr N 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -Too stupid to come up with even a standard disclaimer- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Nov 7 10:09:59 1994 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA10894 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:09:48 -0800 Received: from ppp2.igc.org (ppp2.igc.org [198.94.6.2]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.51 ) with SMTP id KAA25036 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:09:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 10:09:18 -0800 Message-Id: <199411071809.KAA25036@mail.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@mail.igc.apc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: WPS Questions X-Mailer: Bob Roach Says: >Regarding computer programs to help growers to comply with >the WPS, there are already numerous programs to track >pesticide use. Many of these are being modified to output >the required information for "display" or so I have heard. >In California these programs are also being modified to >output the data in a format that can be sent >electronically to county ag commissioners to satisfy the >state's requirement to report all agricultural use of >pesticides. Monterey County will have its first >participants on line this month. I would eventually hope >to see electronic display of data meet the WPS hazard >communication requirements. Can you imagine having a >terminal in the lobby of the agricultural commissioner's >office where workers could go to get specific pesticide >use information? We could do this now. I'm currently using such a package (Application Management System (AMS -Commercial computer systems, St. Petersburg, FL 1-800-340-7525)), and having the ability to provide a computer 'display' as notification would be great. We've been using printouts, which by necessity have to be a 'snapshot' in time, and have already been cause for a few minor mix-ups. These are more likely, however, due to the sheer volume of paper generated through required central posting. Some kind of real-time display would be a great benefit. I think, however, that the reality of using computer technology on a very large scale (concerning WPS) may not be currently feasable. While several growers are now moving into computers, the great majority of farms have avoided these new technologies. Weather it's due to cost, learning curve, or something else, I won't venture to guess, but the reality is that there is actually very little computer hardware being used on the average farm. We (as crop consultants) have found that many growers are willing to pay for the 'computer expertise' aspect of using software, rather than develop their own in-house computer use. We are currently using AMS to implement a sort of fax-back service where growers write down what they want to spray and fax it in. We then enter the information, and send them back the required forms. Most of the growers (I think) are unwilling to hire additional expertise to do this sort of thing in-house. I definitely side and agree with Bob here, in that yes, we most certainly can do this now, however, the pessimist in me thinks that computerizing WPS 'on the farm' may generate a lawsuit based on the 'communicate in a language generally understood by workers' terminology of the EPA. There are currently several tools available (mostly on internet) that are potentially of great value in finding information such as pesticide use requirements. I would really like to see some kind of central node that contained MSDS sheets, REI's, PHI's etc. I sit here with WWW/Mosaic, FTP/Gopher/Archie, Slip Connections, 3 internet service providers, accounts on UNIX boxes from here to taiwan, and I still haven't been able to find any on-line source for this type of information. /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 18665 127th Dr N 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -Too stupid to come up with even a standard disclaimer- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Nov 7 21:23:48 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 VAA11025 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 21:23:47 -0800 Received: from localhost by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id AAA05559; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 00:23:16 -0500 Date: 08 Nov 94 00:19:45 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Weeds in nurseries Message-ID: <941108051945_73507.555_HHB65-1@CompuServe.COM> Al French replies thus to the question: <7. Could torches or mechanical devices be used in areas where plants were> < I am a former grower and I appreciate growers' reluctance to abandon > Does anyone else think it is strange to consider the use of flamethrowers for spot-treatments of weeds as a substitute for an herbicide like glyphosate? I think our risk assessment process is out of kilter. I also think the hoe is a better idea than a torch. What would OSHA think? Would a commercially available torch for weed control have to be registered by the U.S. EPA as a pest control device? I am collecting examples of regulatory barriers to safer and better methods of pest control. It would be nice to hear that this is not the case. I think that Al has come up with some very good ideas and creative ways to comply as efficiently as possible. I just have difficulty seeing how these practices eliminate any substantial risks for workers. Would it not be possible to just orally warn the workers not to enter the treated areas (step on any weeds) without the proper protective equipment? Bob Roach From GEYER@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Tue Nov 8 04:39:44 1994 Received: from VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (vtvm1.cc.vt.edu [128.173.4.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id EAA19253 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 04:39:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199411081239.EAA19253@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: from VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU by VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3203; Tue, 08 Nov 94 07:39:34 EST Received: from VTVM1 (NJE origin GEYER@VTVM1) by VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0265; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 07:39:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 08 Nov 94 07:34:06 EST From: Leon Subject: Re: Weeds in nurseries To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 7 Nov 1994 21:24:01 -0800 from <73507.555@compuserve.com> As a lawyer/economist, I enjoy the discussion about worker safety and the problems of implementation. Reading the traffic on weeds in nurseries, I think about what my friends who own nurseries go through. I hope all understand that as an observer and in a humorous vien, I have this vision of a world war II flame thrower in the nursery. As an older than I care to admit farm boy, I spe nt many a day just plain pulling the weeds. Of course, I was "free" to dad, wanted the tan, and the alternative was not going any where. Leon PS I do appreciate the wps forum as an exciting tool to share ideas and the real issues of how to get it done. From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Nov 8 12:20:39 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 MAA03091 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 12:20:38 -0800 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id MAA26022; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 12:20:07 -0800 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 12:20:07 -0800 Message-Id: <199411082020.MAA26022@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: ag-hrnet@ucdavis.edu Subject: Spanish AG Supervisor Training Cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, dairy-l@umdd.umd.edu Please note the following correction: the correct location for the Spanish Supervisory Training Workshop this year is STOCKTON, CA, and not Modesto as previously announced. 3-day Supervisory Skills Training workshop (AGRICULTURE) Dates: December 7-9, 1994 Where: Stockton, California (AGricultural Extension office) 420 South Wilson Way in Stockton Cost: $45 per person ($35 ea. if postmarked pre-registration by Nov. 21) Lunch included each day as part of registration fee. Language: SPANISH For: Agricultural supervisors, foremen, and Farm Labor Contractors (FLCs) Topics: Improved supervisory skills + EPA certification for WPS field worker training. - Counseling employees - Communication skills - Supervisors in the role of mediators or arbitrators (conflict management) - Power & abuse of authority - Discipline - Interpersonal relations - Basics of employee selection - Certification program teaching participants how to conduct WPS field worker training and certifying them to do so under US EPA WPS. For more information contact G. Billikopf (209) 525-6654. Instructors: Gregorio Billikopf & Guadalupe Sandoval ______________________________________________________________________ Pre-registration form: SUPERVISORY TRAINING SKILLS: DECEMBER 7-9, 1994 Name (nombre) ____________________________________________________ Phone (telEfono) _________________________________________________ Business _________________________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________________ City ___________________________ State ____________ Zip __________ I am enclosing check for $________ ($45 ea. or $35 ea. if postmarked by November 21, 1994. Lunch included each of the three days.) Make checks out to: 'UC REGENTS' Names of persons attending: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ attach additional names. _______________________________________________________________________ NOTE: Participants will receive a 40 page Spanish version of the longer book, LABOR MANAGEMENT IN AG: CULTIVATING PERSONNEL PRODUCTIVITY (170 pages, $10.) If any of your supervisory staff prefer to read English, please enclose $10 per copy of the book or they may wish to purchase it while attending the meeting. These checks need to be made out to 'Stanislaus Farm Advisor's Trust,' however. Gregorio Other meetings: November 10, 1994: WPS training for TRAINERS of handlers--Modesto ($100) November 15, 1994: WPS training for field workers--Merced (FREE) December 1, 1994: EPA regulations + other topics (4hrs CE hours for Laws & Regs, pending) (FREE) December 14, 1994: WPS training for field workers--Stockton (FREE) January 17, 1994: WPS training for field workers--Modesto (FREE) February 28, 1995: FLC (farm labor contractor) training.--Modesto ($10 ea., with $8 for early pre-registration) More info TBA *********************************************************************** 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 ************************************************************************ *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Nov 8 13:34:24 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 NAA05007 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 13:34:24 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id NAA11683; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 13:34:22 -0800 Message-Id: <199411082134.NAA11683@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2400; Tue, 08 Nov 94 13:32:41 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 0970; Tue, 08 Nov 94 13:32:23 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 9874; Tue, 08 Nov 94 16:33:30 EST Date: Tue, 08 Nov 94 16:31:35 EST From: Al French Subject: Sources for fact sheets To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: Jeff Woodard said: < I would really like to see some kind of central node that contained MSDS > < sheets, REI's, PHI's etc. I sit here with WWW/Mosaic, FTP/Gopher/Archie, > < Slip Connections, 3 internet service providers, accounts on UNIX boxes > < from here to taiwan, and I still haven't been able to find any on-line > < source for this type of information. > Jeff, I haven't tried the following sources (because I have only E-mail) but they may be worth looking into: Gopher: Oregon State University (oes.orst.edu) for EXTOXNET - EXTension TOXicology NETwork and look for PIP - Pesticide Information Project. PIP has fact sheets for many pesticides. Gopher: ecosys.drdr.virginia.edu/education/environmental fact sheets/epa chemical substance fact sheets. (EPA Chemical Substance Fact Sheets; provides keyword search) Gopher: gaia.ucs.orst.edu/osu information and services/osu academic departments and colleges/environmental health and safety (Material Safety Data Sheets) Gopher: tox.nlm.nih.gov (TOXNET: National Library of Medicine system; toxicology of hazardous chemicals) Gopher.ars-grin.gov. (USDA Agricultural Research Service) Gopher: info.psu.edu/information servers at penn state/penn state penpages. (Penn State University; agriculture) The EPA Pesticide Special Review and Reregistration Information System has a BBS 703-308-7224 that contains the "Rainbow" Report which includes pesticide toxicological information, but not in a fact sheet format. I've heard that a free online MSDS Service is sponsored by Crop Data Management Systems, 423 Fourth Street, Marysville, California 800-237-2367, 916-743-7605. I hope this helps. If you find some good sources, please let the net know. 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 11/5 Gators 55 So. Miss 17 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Nov 9 13:45:25 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.101] (gia5mac21.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA06725 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 13:45:22 -0800 Message-Id: <199411092145.NAA06725@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 13:45:39 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: archive items + housekeeping 1. Two files have been added to the archive. One of them is the 10/21/94 letter (from Lynn R. Goldman, EPA Assistant Administrator, to Rick Perry, Chair of NASDA Worker Protection Task Force) that officially responds to the NASDA petition to revise the WPS. This letter was posted in the forum last week but now can be retrieved as a separate file. Its filename is "resnasda.epa". The other addition is the article "Migrant Farmworker Training Needs and the Pesticide Worker Protection Standards," by Mary Ann Spitzer, Fred Whitford, and Martin Frick, all of Purdue University. It reports on an interesting study in Indiana and is reproduced with permission from the _Journal of Extension_, Volume 32, Number 3 (October 1994). Filename in the archive is "tr-needs.art". The following abstract is adapted from JOE: ABSTRACT: This study was conducted to assess farmworkers' level of pesticide safety knowledge and to identify factors which influence their learning process. Four recommendations are provided to strengthen effectiveness of the education component of the worker protection standard: assess and build on learner knowledge; stimulate interest through relevancy to real life issues; recognize the effectiveness of the existing communication system; and utilize established state contacts, resources, and programs. To obtain a copy of any file in the archive, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: "GET WPS-FORUM " 2. The welcome message for new forum subscribers is slightly revised from last month, which itself had several changes from the August version. Currently there are 252 of us. For a copy of the current welcome message at any time, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the one-line message: "INFO WPS-Forum". 3. Many new subscribers have been taking advantage of the "DIGEST" option for receiving posts. With this setting, messages are delivered in one composite each day that anything is posted to the forum, rather than one-by-one. With multi-post days becoming more frequent, subscribers who joined the forum months ago (before the explanation of MAIL settings was clarified in the welcome message) may want to reconsider this option. If you wish change your receiving mode to DIGEST, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: "SET WPS-Forum MAIL DIGEST". Howard Rosenberg From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Nov 9 14:58:07 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.30] (gia3mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.30]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA08447 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 14:58:05 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 14:58:09 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Re: archive items + housekeeping You're getting pretty good at this, that was a very good list owner message! By the way, I meant to request an index in order to check that it looks OK but got distracted and didn't do it, have you (then I don't have to)? -- Dana From sgrower1@rain.org Thu Nov 10 20:22:42 1994 Received: from coyote.rain.org (coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA18506 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 1994 20:22:08 -0800 Received: by coyote.rain.org(4.1/SMI-RAIN) with id AA04934 for wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU on Thu, 10 Nov 94 20:17:59 PST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 20:17:57 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Soderman To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Sources for fact sheets In-Reply-To: <199411082134.NAA11683@nak.berkeley.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 8 Nov 1994, Al French wrote: I've heard that a free online MSDS Service is sponsored by Crop Data Management Systems, 423 Fourth Street, Marysville, California 800-237-2367, 916-743-7605. Hi Al French, I called and checked out this item on your list of fact sheets. This company no longer offers a free online service. They specalize in production Agriculture and offer an online MSDS service for $100 per year. The have a record keeping-Reporting software package and the MSDS is part of that package. They mentioned several Ag Chem dealers in my area that subscribe to their system.Phil Soderman sgrower1@rain.org From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Fri Nov 11 09:06:07 1994 Received: from peseta.ucdavis.edu (peseta.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.184]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA27963 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 09:06:06 -0800 Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by peseta.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id JAA05763; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 09:05:57 -0800 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ([user unknown]) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 09:05:57 -0800 Message-Id: <199411111705.JAA05763@peseta.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Cards Here! THANKS to WPS netters and all who helped move the process along. I can report that DPR did move my application along and sent me a batch of 600 blue WPS cards. I received them this morning and they arrived yesterday, November 10, while I attended the excellent class for Trainers of Handlers put together by the Pat Marer, Melanie Zavala & Guadalupe Sandoval trio. Anyone who has not had a chance to attend this meeting, I would highly recommend it even if you are already qualified on paper to hold training. THE WPS BLUE CARD WILL BE GIVEN OUT TO FIELDWORKERS WHO ATTEND: November 15 - Merced Ag Extension office (Wardrobe Ave.) December 14 - San Joaquin Ag Extension office (S. Wilson Way, Stockton) January 17 - Modesto Ag Extension office (corner Oakdale & Scenic) Meetings are FREE and will go from 8:30 am to 11 am. No pre-registration is required, but you may do so by calling Melynda at (209) 525-6654. Best wishes, 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 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Nov 13 10:17:32 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 KAA03897 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 1994 10:17:31 -0800 Received: from localhost by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id NAA12979; Sun, 13 Nov 1994 13:16:49 -0500 Date: 13 Nov 94 13:13:35 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Reflections on elections Message-ID: <941113181334_73507.555_HHB69-1@CompuServe.COM> Did we all get the message? The electorate sent it loud and clear: we want less government and we want better government. The trend of recent history has been a shift in power from the states to the federal government. There has been a corresponding growth in the arrogance of the federal bureaucracy. States are being told how to achieve federal standards in a narrow-minded way that does not allow for local conditions. Federal mandates are sometimes imposed without funding from the federal government. I agree that the federal government needs to set standards for the country. Regarding pesticides and worker safety, many states certainly need to have their standards raised. However, California has been leading the nation for many years and now is in danger of having its program degraded. California should not have to go through such a struggle for equivalency for its regulations as is now occurring. In 1988 California extended the pesticide worker safety rules to all workplaces where pesticides are used. This meant that hotels, restaurants and other businesses where anti-microbial products were used now were covered by the same regulations that previously applied to agricultural situations. When businesses such as the hotel, motel and restaurant industry realized what had happened they said, "Wait a minute, we are now being regulated by two agencies, Cal-OSHA and the Department of Pesticide Regulation. This is confusing and duplicative over-regulation and the new regulations do not fit our situation." DPR is currently proposing regulation changes to rectify this situation by eliminating regulatory overlap and providing exemptions where the regulations do not make sense. It is ironic that while with the one hand we are doing this, with the other hand we are proposing pesticide worker safety regulations that require the employer to address heat-related illness. Employers are already required to address this by Cal-OSHA. Now that the elections are over and Pete Wilson remains as Governor, there will be no shakeup at Cal-EPA. I hope that the state can now move on and find the resolve to deal with the problem of implementing the WPS in California in an effective and sensible way. Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Mon Nov 14 07:41:44 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 HAA02023 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 07:41:43 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id HAA02131; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 07:41:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199411141541.HAA02131@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7032; Mon, 14 Nov 94 07:42:42 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7651; Mon, 14 Nov 94 07:42:42 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 4598; Mon, 14 Nov 94 10:41:24 EST Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 10:39:16 EST From: Al French Subject: Gov. info source To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: Excerpt of remarks by Rep. Newt Gingrich before the Washington Research Group Symposium, November 11, 1994: "We will change the rules of the House to require that all documents and all conference reports and all committee reports be filed electronically as well as in writing, and that they cannot be filed until they are available to any citizen in the country at the same moment it is available to the highest- paid lobbyist." Such material is held by the Library of Congress, (ftp.loc.gov) but access is only available to members of Congress. LOC staff tell me this restriction is by order of the Speaker of the House, so . . . 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 AP Rates Gators #3 in Nation Too bad there's no national champ playoffs! From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Mon Nov 14 10:44:39 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 KAA07753 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:44:39 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:48:04 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:42:45 -0800 To: WPS-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: CA TRAINING CARDS AVAILABLE ATTENTION ALL PROSPECTIVE CALIFORNIA TRAINERS OF FIELDWORKERS. The cards are in hand and the agreement form is available. There are several ways to obtain a copy of the application/agreement form. 1. Call either the Enforcement or Worker Safety Branches. For ENF call 916/445-3886 and ask for Bob Chavez For WHS call 916/445-4279 and ask for Roy Rutz 2. Mail a request to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Enforcement Branch, 1020 N Street, room 300, Sacramento, CA 95814-5624 3. Send an E-Mail request to me at ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.gov 4. A copy of the form has been faxed to each county agricultural commissioner. If you ask real nice they may be willing to make and give you a copy The form is quite simple to complete-just follow the directions if all else fails. Attach a copy of your qualification document and mail the completed form to the address indicated. In due time you should receive the number of cards requested. ROYR From ray@acpa.org Tue Nov 15 06:11:48 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 GAA29310 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 06:11:45 -0800 Received: from MAIN-Message_Server by wposmtp.acpa.org with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 11:17:19 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 11:14:18 -0500 From: ray@acpa.org To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Worker Protection and Water-Soluble Packaging There has been a tremendous push over the past few years by registrants to get pesticide products into water-soluble packaging. EPA is enthusiasticly supporting and encouraging this effort. However, the current Worker Protection Standard predates this effort and does not adequately consider the safety margin offered by water soluble packaging. Would it be possible to institute reduced protective clothing and protective equipment requirements for the mixer/loader/handler dealing with a product in water-soluble packaging? Does this require a petition for rulemaking to change WPS? I would be interested in hearing from someone within EPA. From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Nov 15 10:54:33 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 KAA04658 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:54:32 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:36:43 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:20:27 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS and Water-Soluable Packaging On November 15, 1994, a Worker Protection Standard (WPS) question was anonymously sent over the WPS Forum, inquiring about the WPS and water soluble packaging of pesticides. The author of this inquiry appropriately states that the U.S. EPA supports and encourages the mix/loading of pesticides through water soluble packaging, but wonders how this new technology interacts with the WPS requirements. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In response, the WPS already contains some provisions for personal protective equipment (PPE) exceptions for "closed systems". This is explained on pages 85-86 of the How-to-Comply manual, as well as in 40 CFR 170.240(d)(4) of the Rule. Please refer to both for an explanation of these provisions and conditions for a reduction in PPE. Further Rulemaking is not required at this time. As further clarification, the Agency has already addressed this issue through two WPS Interpretive Guidance Workgoup (Interpretive Policy) Questions and Answers (labeled 4.14 and 4.15). The former, the answer of which I will not provide here for brevity, asks: "What is the definition of a closed system? What personal protective equipment is required when a closed system is used?" The latter question is, however, restated here for a proper response. 4.15 Q. Is a water soluble bag considered a closed system? A. Yes, for WPS purposes, a water soluble bag is considered a closed loading system and, unless prohibited by the product labeling, handlers may be permitted to wear reduced personal protective equipment (PPE) as outlined in 40 CFR Part 170.240(d)(4). Once a water soluble bag is dissolved, broken, punctured, torn, or otherwise allows its contents to escape, it is no longer a closed system and label-specified PPE must be worn. In the case of routine mixing and loading with water soluble bags, label-specified PPE for the activity performed must be worn once the bags have lost their integrity, i.e., begin to dissolve in the tank, unless the mix tank and transfer system are closed systems. I hope that this clarifies this particular issue. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago) From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Tue Nov 15 15:02:38 1994 Received: from exnet.iastate.edu (exnet.iastate.edu [129.186.107.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA02866 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:02:37 -0800 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA06995; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:02:37 -0500 Message-Id: <9411152202.AA06995@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:02:30 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) Subject: WPS Immediate family definition X-Mailer: > >Recently I was told that the definition of immediate family was expanded to >include sister-in-laws and brother-in-laws. Is this correct? Any other >family members now included, like grandparents? > >Thanks for your help. > >Wendy Wintersteen >Iowa State University > > > From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Nov 15 16:24:20 1994 Received: from peseta.ucdavis.edu (peseta.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.184]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA05895 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:24:20 -0800 Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by peseta.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id PAA05624; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:26:04 -0800 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ([user unknown]) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:26:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199411152326.PAA05624@peseta.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: My first WPS training Just finished my first WPS training for field workers. I gave out the blue EPA cards to participants. BUT I ONLY HAD 5 PARTICIPANTS. There are several explanations for the poor turnout. 1.- Farmers do not understand the importance of WPS training for their employees. 2.- Farmers plan to conduct their own training 3.- I did a poor job of getting the word out to the farming community. 4.- This is a bad time of the year to offer training to field workers. I have two more meetings (one in Stockton, and the other in Merced). Despite the few participants, we had a good meeting. Workers were full of questions from the start to the finish of the meeting. It was great practice for my next few meetings. Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Nov 15 16:26:28 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 QAA05990 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:26:27 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id QAA17514; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:26:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199411160026.QAA17514@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1915; Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:27:25 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7959; Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:27:24 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 5882; Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:35:23 EST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:32:07 EST From: Al French Subject: training grace period To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On Nov 14, 1994 EPA published a notice of its intention to issue a proposed rule affecting the training provisions of the WPS. The pertinent part of the Federal Register notice follows: ---------------------------cut here---------------------------------------- Abstract: Between April 15, 1994 and October 20, 1997, the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) allows agricultural workers to accumulate 15 separate days of entry into certain treated areas before they must receive EPA approved safety training. After October 20, 1997, the WPS allows a 5-day grace period. High turnover in employment for agricultural worker might result in a significant number of workers not receiving training for long periods of time during which they might be subject to potentially hazardous pesticide exposures. Elimination of any grace period and its associated phase-in will be proposed. The WPS also requires retraining of agricultural workers and handlers at least every five years. Retraining may not be frequent enough to be effective, so retraining every three years will proposed. Public comment and specific information will be requested concerning these issues. Timetable: _________________________________________________________________________ Action Date FR Cite _________________________________________________________________________ NPRM 11/00/94 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3429. Agency Contact: Joan Warshawsky, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, 7506C, Washington DC 20460, 703 305-6533 ---------------------------cut here---------------------------------------- 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 AP Rates Gators #3 - Too bad there's no national playoff! From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Nov 15 16:27:07 1994 Received: from peseta.ucdavis.edu (peseta.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.184]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA06035 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:27:01 -0800 Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by peseta.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id PAA05639; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:26:09 -0800 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ([user unknown]) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:26:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199411152326.PAA05639@peseta.ucdavis.edu> To: ag-hrnet@ucdavis.edu Subject: Labor Mgmt Book Cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, rawnbe@epo.gov.on.ca, dairy-l@umdd.umd.edu We quickly sold out the first 187 copies of Labor Management in Ag: Cultivating Personnel Productivity. Today we got our second batch of books and are mailing them out to those of you who have already sent your orders. Please excuse our delay! I am attaching an order form for those who are interested in sending for the book. LABOR MANAGEMENT IN AG: CULTIVATING PERSONNEL PRODUCTIVITY (170 pages, $10). It emphasizes labor management principles relating to the selection, promotion, motivation, pay, and supervision of agricultural personnel (from field worker to farm manager). Chapters in LABOR MANAGEMENT IN AG: 1. Managing people on the farm 2. Practical steps to employee selection 3. Validating the selection process 4. Promotions, transfers & layoffs 5. Helping workers acquire skills 6. Performance appraisal 7. Internal wage structure 8. Incentive pay 9. Supervisory power 10. Delegation 11. Conducting effective meetings 12. Interacting with employees 13. Conflict management skills 14. Discipline and termination 15. Turnover 16. Personnel policies Order form: _________________________________________________________________ US $10 per book Name __________________________________________________________ Business ______________________________________________________ Address _______________________________________________________ City ______________________________ Country __________________ Enclosed is a check made out to "Stanislaus County Farm Advisors' Trust" for $__________________ (QUANTITY: ______ book(s) at US $10 per book). ________________________________________________________________ Mail to G. Billikopf: University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 Best wishes, 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 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Nov 15 20:14:43 1994 Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.7.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA11370 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:14:42 -0800 Received: from localhost by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id XAA14809; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:14:40 -0500 Date: 15 Nov 94 23:05:59 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: State's rights Message-ID: <941116040559_73507.555_HHB103-1@CompuServe.COM> The following is the text of a bill adopted in the California Senate on August 15, 1994, the California Assembly on August 23, 1994 and filed with the California Secretary of State on August 29, 1994. WHEREAS, The tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and WHEREAS, the 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and; WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States,112 S, Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states and; WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now , therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, that the state of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further Resolved, that the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the house and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America. * end of text * California now joins Colorado, Missouri, Hawaii and Illinois in passing this measure. Oklahoma has passed the resolution on one house. The resolution has also been introduced in Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Seven other states: Utah, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming plan to introduce the resolution when their legislatures next convene. An excerpt from the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. **(Comments on the above) The framers of the Constitution undoubtedly believed that the legislative power of Congress was originally limited to the 17 specific areas listed in Article I, Section 8, plus whatever was necessary and proper for carrying them out. As John Marshall wrote for the Supreme Court in 1819, This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the power granted to it, would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally admitted. Marshall, however, added two important corollaries to constitutional doctrine, both of which have markedly influenced constitutional interpretation. The first corollary is that "the government of the Union, though limited to its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action." In other words, where Congress has the power to act, its actions take precedence over state actions. The second corollary is that the "necessary and proper" clause in paragraph 18 should be broadly construed to provide Congress "some choice of means of legislation, not strained and compressed within the narrow limits for which gentlemen contend." In practice, these corollaries have given Congress clear advantages in the continuing struggle for power between the national and state governments. Experience has shown that the enumerated powers of Section 8 do not include all matters in which congressional action might be needed. Congress has been granted other specific powers in several amendments. For example, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments assure citizens of several basic rights, and all three provide that "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." For the most part, however, the power of the national government has been expanded not by breaching the doctrine of enumerated powers as it pertains to Congress, but rather by broad interpretation of those specific powers, notably the power to regulate commerce, and by a liberal interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause. A common misconception about the U.S. political system is that Congress has the constitutional power to legislate virtually anything it deems to be for the general welfare. It is true that the Constitution gives Congress "the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," but this is different from giving Congress the power to legislate freely for the general welfare. Indeed, if Congress did have such a power, there would be no need to grant other enumerated powers. Congress's power to provide for the general welfare is limited to taxing and spending. Whereas these powers are considerable, clearly a great difference exists between the power to compel and the power to entice by the offer of money. Congress may try to entice the states to do something in, for example, the field of education by means of subsidies or grants, but it cannot compel them to accept the enticements. One of the great controversies about the exercise of congressional power has been over the extent to which Congress may delegate its powers to the president and others. In the days of the NEW DEAL, in the 1930s, the Supreme Court put some checks on Congress's growing proclivity to delegate power. It held that Congress could only delegate power if it circumscribed the delegation "within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the legislature is to apply." The question is no longer hotly discussed on the national level, partly because Congress is now careful to set standards when it delegates power, and partly because the Court has grown more permissive. On the state and municipal levels, however, delegation remains a lively issue, probably because judges feel uneasy about delegating power to government officials of less than national stature. (from Colliers Encyclopedia, on-line edition) From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Wed Nov 16 05:37:56 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 FAA16687 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:37:56 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HJJHERRF808XFYE3@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 08:37:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HJJHA9OP2O8Y9QY4@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 08:33:52 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 08:29:01 EST MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 08:29:01 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 08:11:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: RE: epa pr notice 93-7 To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HJJHAMIBIW8Y9QY4@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, 16 Nov 1994 08:28:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;10928061114991/2002821@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 In regard to the list attached to EPA's PR Notice 93-7, words of caution are essential. That list was a PRELIMINARY cut at the products thought to be "in scope" for the WPS. It is NOT the definitive list, and caution should be exercised in using the list. In the course of registration and reregistration, some of the PPE requirements may have changed. Also, many registrants are coming into the Agency with new data to modify labels. As pointed out in other Forum comments, REI's and PPE may not be reflective of the signal word assigned to the product (see note below). Go to the product label for the definitive determination on PPE and REIs. Note: For example, for a product, all of the acute toxicity categories may be category 2; if the product has a developmental tox. or teratogenic tox. concern with high risks concerns associated with use, PPE and/or an REI typical of a Tox category I material may be assigned. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Nov 16 11:06:13 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 LAA22355 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 11:06:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199411161906.LAA22355@are.Berkeley.EDU> X-Sender: howardr@are.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 11:06:28 -0800 To: wps-forum From: S001627@wais.access.gpo.gov@rtpnc.epa.gov (S001627@wais.access.gpo.gov) (by way of howardr@are.berkeley.edu (Howard R. Rosenberg)) Subject: proposed change in training grace period and retrain interval [Federal Register: November 16, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 170 [OPP-250096; FRL-4900-4] Worker Protection Standards Safety Training; Grace Period and Retraining Interval AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notification to Secretary of Agriculture. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a proposed rule under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The proposed rule proposes to modify the grace period for training employees and to shorten the retraining interval. This notification is required under FIFRA sec. 25(a)(2). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Certification and Training, Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 1132B, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington. VA., (703) 305-7371. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 25(2)(2) of FIFRA provides that the Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any proposed rule at least 60 days before signing the proposed rule for publication in the Federal Register. If the Secretary comments in writing regarding the proposed rule within 30 days after receiving it, the Administrator shall issue for publication in the Federal Register, with the proposed rule, the comments of the Secretary of Agriculture, if requested by the Secretary, and the response of the Administrator concerning the Secretary's comments. The Administrator has forwarded a copy of a proposed rule to the Secretary of Agriculture proposing to modify the grace period for training employees and to shorten the retraining interval. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest, Intergovernmental relations, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeping requirements. Dated: November 4, 1994 Daniel M. Barolo, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 94-28143 Filed 11-15-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From Charles.Hesselein@acenet.auburn.edu Wed Nov 16 12:17:43 1994 Received: from acenet.auburn.edu (aces1.acenet.auburn.edu [131.204.46.253]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA24570 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 12:17:42 -0800 Received: by acenet.auburn.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1 aces1 1.0) id AA18569; Wed, 16 Nov 94 14:17:39 CST Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:17:38 -0600 (CST) From: Charles Hesselein X-Sender: chessele@aces1 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Successful WPS handler meeting Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Last week I held a WPS handler training. I sent an invitation to everyone on my mailing list (approx. 160), got press coverage by enlisting the help of the Extension County Agent Coordinators (CACs) of two nearby counties. Also got those CACs to send invitations to their larger growers who probably would not have been on my list. The training utilized an University of Florida produced, EPA approved, video, followed by Q & A at the local County Agents' office. The training then moved to the Ornamental Horticulture Experiment Substation where workable methods of compliance were demonstrated. The entire training took about 4 hrs.; 2 hrs. at the County Agents' office (including 30-45 mins. to complete the paperwork) and another two hours at the experiment station. Attenders not only received their WPS handler cards but also were eligible for continuing education points towards their restricted pesticide applicator permits. Result: 79 WPS handlers trained, 50 attenders receiving continuing education points and 1/4 page of positive press in the local paper. (Subsequent to the newspaper article following the meeting, several growers phoned the county agent to find out when the next training would be held). Chazz Hesselein Extension Horticulturist, ACES P.S. I also enlisted support of the local nursery association which chipped in money for refreshments. From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Wed Nov 16 14:14:51 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 OAA27299 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:14:46 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 3240; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:08:39 +500 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:08:38 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <009878FD.29C5AF20.3240@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: RE: Successful WPS handler meeting Sounds like a great program but I'm not sure if I understand correctly.. Do certified applicators in California have to be trained as handlers or was this group not actually certified applicators? The continuiing education credits implied to me that they were already trained. Just curious since certified applicators do not need handler cards or handler training under WPS. From GJC@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Thu Nov 17 10:10:22 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 KAA03923 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:10:20 -0800 From: GJC@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HJL53N7NFK8Y8M2H@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:09:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:09:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: wps jurisdiction in interiorscapes To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HJL53N8GDE8Y8M2H@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu" X-VMS-Cc: GJC MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Geri Cashion has a question regading posting requirements for sprays applied to interior plants by licensed applicator. Does WPS affect plants maintained professionally in interiors? If so, how is it posted? From dbayer@usaid.gov Thu Nov 17 15:31:12 1994 Received: from info.usaid.gov (zeus.info.usaid.gov [198.76.84.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA14085 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:31:11 -0800 Received: from [165.13.2.2] by info.usaid.gov with SMTP (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/2.9-eef) id AA05188; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:32:16 -0500 Received: by BASA14001.usaid.gov; Thu, 17 Nov 94 18:31:03 EST Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 17:14:47 EST Message-Id: From: "David Bayer" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: ag-hrnet@ucdavis.edu Subject: Banned Chemicals / E-mail Addresses X-Incognito-Sn: 235 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.00 Beta-30 ENCRYPTED=NO Those of us involved in agricultural exports need to have up-dated information from FDA, EPA, USDA, APHIS, and other Federal/State agencies with regard to chemicals used in the production and the preservation of foods: 1- we need to know if chemicals have been recently banned. 2- we need to know if the tolerance levels (ppm) have been changed. 3- we need to know any other restrictions related to the above which may change from one week to the next. I am requesting from the network, HELP. Do you have the E-mail addresses of the above public agencies or their specialized Information Resources Departments? I need these E-mail addresses, please. Or is there some other data bank which exporters may tap on a continuous basis which may give them this up-dated information? Please let me know. From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Fri Nov 18 05:15:28 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 FAA25319 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 05:15:27 -0800 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HJM90QM58W8ZEATS@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 08:14:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 08:14:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: wps jurisdiction in interiorscapes To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HJM90QMY6A8ZEATS@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 Geri, WPS does not apply to the maintenance of plants in interiorscapes or landscapes.WPS applies to the production of plants in nurseries, greenhouses, as well as farms and forests. Once these plants are taken from the production area and installed in the landscape or interiorscape, WPS does not apply to pesticides applied to them. Norm Nesheim, Pesticide Information Coordinator From KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Fri Nov 18 16:41:45 1994 Received: from sprintf.merit.edu (sprint.com [198.70.61.62]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA11238 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 16:41:43 -0800 X400-Received: by mta merit in /PRMD=internet/ADMD=telemail/C=us/; Relayed; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:30:30 -0500 X400-Received: by /ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:25:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:25:09 -0500 X400-Originator: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/;HGJE-6722-5263/36] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: RS11443 36 From: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Message-ID: To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: Banned Chemicals / E-mail Addresses Joe Hagerty at Purdue University has created an Export Certification Project that provided up-to-date information about export requirements, including information on noxious weeds. It was rumored to be available July, 1994. In a conversation I had with Mr. Hagerty around that time, Mr H said some decision making group was still working out a price. This database, called "EXCERPT", has been available and is used by state and federal ag agencies. Mr. Hagerty's phone at Purdue is 317-494-4967. From Patric6548@aol.com Sun Nov 20 11:18:05 1994 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA00959 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 11:18:04 -0800 From: Patric6548@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AB11140; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 14:17:33 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 14:17:33 -0500 Message-Id: <941120141732_3518518@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Publicizing WPS meetings Gregory: Please Fax me the dates, places and times of your WPS meetings and I will get them published in the magazines I'm editing, as well as on KMPH NewsRadio, Fresno. I'll also call for sound bites from you. We've got to get more employers and employees to these important meetings your putting together. Thanks for all your good work... -----Patrick Cavanaugh FAX 209-225-0235 From Patric6548@aol.com Sun Nov 20 11:35:39 1994 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA01120 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 11:35:38 -0800 From: Patric6548@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA14356; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 14:35:07 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 14:35:07 -0500 Message-Id: <941120142733_3523323@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Publicizing WPS Events Anyone with meeting dates and other important workshops that need publicity, I will be happy to publicize it on KMPH NewRadio in Fresno. I'll will also publish the meeting dates in the following magazines which I serve as Editor: American Vineyard, Central Valley Farmer and Pacific Nut Producer. Simply fax the information to me. Make sure there is a contact number on the fax, in case I need more information or a sound-bite for radio. FAX (209) 225-0235. I'm here to serve you..... -----Patrick Cavanaugh Phone: (209) 229-3378 Fax: (209) 225-0235 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Nov 20 20:51:50 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 UAA15888 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 20:51:39 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.940406sam) id XAA13323; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 23:50:51 -0500 Date: 20 Nov 94 23:46:46 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Federal Power Message-ID: <941121044646_73507.555_HHB10-2@CompuServe.COM> A timely footnote to the California resolution I posted is found in an article this day by syndicated columnist George F. Will entitled "Federal Arm Limited On Two Fronts." In it he cites a September 1993 federal appeals court decision regarding the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990. The court said that in this case Congress acted where it had no authority to act. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision it will be "the first significant ruling enforcing the borders of the commerce clause in more than half a century." I am not a constitutional attorney so I am not prepared to make a judgment on the constitutionality of the WPS. I did note that in the Federal Register there was a lengthy justification of the U.S EPA's authority to adopt the standard. I also realize that the WPS is not an act of our elected officials in Congress but an act of the federal bureaucracy. Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Mon Nov 21 06:15:21 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 GAA19827 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 06:15:20 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HJQI34A5YO8WW37V@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 09:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HJQHXFQHGW8Y4ZAJ@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 09:08:02 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 09:06:59 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 09:06:59 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 08:34:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: RE: Worker Protection and Water-Soluble Packaging To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HJQHXPXJ7U8Y4ZAJ@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, 21 Nov 1994 09:04:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;95609012114991/2025852@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 In terms of reducing PPE for mixer/loaders for products packaged in water-soluble materials, EPA will allow the registrant to come in and request PPE reduction on the label. This request often needs to be supported by data to prove that reduction of the PPE requirements will not increase risk to mixer/loaders. This process is best handled via registration on a product-by-product basis. This also assures that the Agency has a current label, that the current label can be made available to Regional and State Lead Agencies, and reenforces state inspections and compliance positions. Also water-soluble packaging does not decrease risk to applicators. At the current time, there have been no discussions with respect to doing a broad exception for water-soluble packaging. With the provisions available to registrants thru registration/reregistration, it would be hard to justify an exception for these products. Judy Smith EPA Occupational Safety Branch 703-305-5621 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Nov 22 09:54:47 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.104] (gia5mac24.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.104]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA18505 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:54:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199411221754.JAA18505@are.Berkeley.EDU> X-Sender: howardr@are.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:55:02 -0800 To: wps-forum From: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU (by way of howardr@are.berkeley.edu (Howard R. Rosenberg)) Subject: Ray McAllister response on banned chemicals {The message below was received by wps-forum but not immediately distributed, due to software glitch.} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From ray@acpa.org Tue Nov 22 09:25:06 1994 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 12:22:52 -0500 I am forwarding David Bayer's plea for information on cancelation actions and tolerance changes to Amy Breedlove (breedlove.amy@epamail.epa.gov) in the Communications Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, at EPA. I believe the OPP's Policy and Special Projects Staff provides at least some of this type of information to embassies and diplomatic contacts worldwide on a regular basis. Announcements of this type occasionally show up in the listing of the FIFRA Docket associated with Jane Hopkins' name. The internet would be ideal as an additional outlet for disseminating such information. Furthermore, Bernal Valverde and Theresa Jimenez at CATIE in Costa Rica provide by subscription an excellent Spanish-language regular update of U.S. pesticide tolerances for a Latin American audience of food exporters to the United States ("Boletin de Tolerancias de Residuos de Plaguicidas"). I believe their efforts are supported to some extent by one or another U.S. government agency. I don't know if they have internet e-mail addresses. Ray McAllister, American Crop Protection Association From dbayer@usaid.gov Tue Nov 22 13:21:53 1994 Received: from info.usaid.gov (zeus.info.usaid.gov [198.76.84.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA25591 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 13:21:52 -0800 Received: from [165.13.2.2] by info.usaid.gov with SMTP (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/2.9-eef) id AA09640; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:22:57 -0500 Received: by BASA14001.usaid.gov; Tue, 22 Nov 94 16:21:27 EST Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 17:03:22 EST Message-Id: From: "David Bayer" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: re: WPS-FORUM digest 138 X-Incognito-Sn: 235 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.00 Beta-30 ENCRYPTED=NO Thank you Ray McAllister for the information provided in wps-Forum digest 138. This will be shared with a number of USAID officials, with Peru's exporters' association (ADEX), other grower associations and the two ag.experimental stations which we have in Ica. We hope that people enjoy the asparagus exported from the Ica valley, in some cases in association with California growers. We grow tomatoes all year round. We are looking forward to exporting more grapes, mangoes, olives, pecans and dates. Anyone who is interested in developing IPM methodologies in the Ica Valley and/or educating students in agricultural development is certainly WELCOME to visit. Write/call : David Bayer P.O. Box 139 Ica, Peru phone/FAX: 51-34-231197 From CBeytes@aol.com Tue Nov 22 15:02:26 1994 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA27962 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 15:02:25 -0800 From: CBeytes@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA24945; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 18:01:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 18:01:53 -0500 Message-Id: <941122164948_5125560@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: How toComply manual availability GrowerTalks magazine will be hosting GrowerExpo: Business Conference '95 January 5-8 in Chicago. It's a four day floriculture conference and trade show. One of our seminars will feature Dr. Will Carlson of Michigan State, Kathryn Szmuszkovicz, an attorney specializing in pesticides and biotechnology, and Orlo (Bob) Ehart, who has been representing several areas of agriculture before the EPA. The three will be telling growers what they need to know to run their greenhouse in full compliance with WPS, and also what their rights are in case of a grievance. We'd like to get WPS how to comply manuals to hand out to all attendees. Can anyone tell me how to get them and if they're available at no cost for an educational seminar of this type? We're expecting over 200 attendees and don't want to have to copy that many ourselves. Thanks! Chris Beytes, managing editor, GrowerTalks magazine From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Nov 22 16:03:59 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.104] (gia5mac24.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.104]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA00335 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:03:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199411230003.QAA00335@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:04:16 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: resp. to Chris Beytes on HTC availability >We'd like to get WPS how to comply manuals to hand out to all attendees. Can >anyone tell me how to get them and if they're available at no cost for an >educational seminar of this type? We're expecting over 200 attendees and >don't want to have to copy that many ourselves. Chris, At no cost? Does a bear sleep in a bed? Cheapest hard copy I know of is from Gemplers, Inc. -- only 55 cents each for orders of 100+, according to a year-old brochure. Maybe they can do even better on special request, 608/437-4883. It doesn't spare you the copying problem, but may be worth mentioning at EXPO that full text of the manual is in wps-forum archive. Attendees with Internet onramps can download (via GET WPS-FORUM htc_all), delete irrelevant portions, and otherwise customize to their own situations. Howard From pbaker@ag.Arizona.EDU Tue Nov 22 17:55:46 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 RAA03060 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 17:55:45 -0800 Received: by ag.Arizona.EDU (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02675; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 18:50:57 +0700 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 18:50:56 -0700 (MST) From: Paul B Baker To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: How toComply manual availability In-Reply-To: <941122164948_5125560@aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 1490 FYI, we here at the University of Arizona have a pamphlet on WPS on Greenhouse and Nursery. Copies can be obtain from our Ag Communications Office at 602-621-7177 (Robert Casler). If you need more information please get in touch. Paul 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 Tue, 22 Nov 1994 CBeytes@aol.com wrote: > GrowerTalks magazine will be hosting GrowerExpo: Business Conference '95 > January 5-8 in Chicago. It's a four day floriculture conference and trade > show. One of our seminars will feature Dr. Will Carlson of Michigan State, > Kathryn Szmuszkovicz, an attorney specializing in pesticides and > biotechnology, and Orlo (Bob) Ehart, who has been representing several areas > of agriculture before the EPA. The three will be telling growers what they > need to know to run their greenhouse in full compliance with WPS, and also > what their rights are in case of a grievance. > > We'd like to get WPS how to comply manuals to hand out to all attendees. Can > anyone tell me how to get them and if they're available at no cost for an > educational seminar of this type? We're expecting over 200 attendees and > don't want to have to copy that many ourselves. > > Thanks! > > Chris Beytes, managing editor, GrowerTalks magazine > > From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Wed Nov 23 07:51:32 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 HAA15821 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 07:51:31 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 10759; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 10:44:58 +500 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 10:44:57 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <00987E47.B9373300.10759@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: RE: How toComply manual availability The How-to-Comply Manuals are available from Gemplers at $.85 per copy if you are ordering 200. Joanne Kick-Raack From IPMPBG@uckac.edu Wed Nov 23 13:46:02 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 NAA25854 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 13:45:57 -0800 Received: from uckac.edu by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA29414 for wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU; Wed, 23 Nov 94 16:45:35 -0500 Received: from UCKAC/SpoolDir by uckac.edu (Mercury 1.13); Wed, 23 Nov 94 13:44:03 PDT Received: from SpoolDir by UCKAC (Mercury 1.13); Wed, 23 Nov 94 13:10:41 PDT From: "Peter B. Goodell" Organization: UC Kearney Agricultural Center To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 13:10:34 PDT Subject: Re: Publicizing WPS Events Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-Id: <48398476DE7@uckac.edu> PATRICK------ Good to hear from you on the NET. We have so much to share. This is on our local network so any thing you send me is immediately brought to my attention (assuing I am working oon the computer). PLease use it as often as you need to. I will make liberal use of it myself to you. Best regards. :) From KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Wed Nov 23 14:15:36 1994 Received: from sprintf.merit.edu (sprint.com [198.70.61.62]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA26952 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 14:15:29 -0800 X400-Received: by mta merit in /PRMD=internet/ADMD=telemail/C=us/; Relayed; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 17:10:25 -0500 X400-Received: by /ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 17:08:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 17:08:24 -0500 X400-Originator: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/;GGJE-6728-6146/36] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: RS11443 36 From: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Message-ID: To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: How toComply manual availability Obtain copies of "WPS--How to Comply" manual from U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Suggest letter to same requesting "free" or discounted copies for your seminar. From r-ferree@uiuc.edu Mon Nov 28 10:33:16 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 KAA06336 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 10:33:15 -0800 Received: from [128.174.77.38] (ferree.hort.uiuc.edu) by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA25349 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 28 Nov 1994 12:32:56 -0600 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 12:32:56 -0600 Message-Id: <199411281832.AA25349@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: How toComply manual availability Chris, I suggest you call the Illinois Department of Agriculture. They printed several thousand copies for distribution in Illinois and I know they have several copies left. Yes, I guess a bear can sleep in a bed. Since your meeting is in Illinois, they may be willing to supply your copies for free. Rhonda J. Ferree ----- .>GrowerTalks magazine will be hosting GrowerExpo: Business Conference '95 >January 5-8 in Chicago. It's a four day floriculture conference and trade >show. One of our seminars will feature Dr. Will Carlson of Michigan State, >Kathryn Szmuszkovicz, an attorney specializing in pesticides and >biotechnology, and Orlo (Bob) Ehart, who has been representing several areas >of agriculture before the EPA. The three will be telling growers what they >need to know to run their greenhouse in full compliance with WPS, and also >what their rights are in case of a grievance. > >We'd like to get WPS how to comply manuals to hand out to all attendees. Can >anyone tell me how to get them and if they're available at no cost for an >educational seminar of this type? We're expecting over 200 attendees and >don't want to have to copy that many ourselves. > >Thanks! > >Chris Beytes, managing editor, GrowerTalks magazine --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 whitee@mace.cc.purdue.edu Tue Nov 29 05:30:43 1994 Received: from mace.cc.purdue.edu (mace.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA26155 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 05:30:42 -0800 Received: by mace.cc.purdue.edu (5.61/Purdue_CC) id AA12142; Tue, 29 Nov 94 08:30:31 -0500 From: whitee@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Ed White) Message-Id: <9411291330.AA12142@mace.cc.purdue.edu> Subject: How to comply manuals To: CBeytes@aol.com Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 8:30:31 EST Cc: Multiple@mace.cc.purdue.edu, recipients@mace.cc.purdue.edu, of@mace.cc.purdue.edu, list X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Chris, If Illinois can not provide free copies of the "How to Comply" manuals, contact me at (317) 494-1589. Indiana will gladly provide them to you at no cost. Joe Becovitz Office of the Indiana State Chemist From yams@midway.uchicago.edu Tue Nov 29 06:00:29 1994 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.73]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA26352 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 06:00:28 -0800 Received: from [128.135.83.70] by midway.uchicago.edu for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Tue, 29 Nov 94 08:00:19 CST Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 08:00:18 CST Message-Id: <9411291400.AA01252@midway.uchicago.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: yams@midway.uchicago.edu (Susan Yamins) Subject: WPS manuals This is the first time I have corresponded on this forum, but all the discussion about providing free manuals for the Grower Expo seminar on WPS has prompted me to respond. Everyone should be aware that Grower Talks is charging participants a minimum of $545 to attend this WPSseminar. The $545 does not include housing or food, of course. Although this fee also includes other seminars, it is not possible to attend the WPS sections only for a reduced fee. At that cost it seems to me that Grower Talks should purchase the manuals for the participants. Also, keep in mind that Grower Talks is a for-profit company, and not a not-for-profit organization. If Grower Talks was truly concerned about informing growers of WPS requirements and strategies they would arrange seminars that cost less and were thus accessible to many more participants. Susan Yamins The University of Chicago Greenhouse BSLC - 924 East 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 312/702-8294 312/702-3197 (FAX) email: yams@midway.uchicago.edu From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Tue Nov 29 13:59:40 1994 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (prime.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA07812 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 13:59:40 -0800 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199411292159.NAA07812@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 29 Nov 94 13:57:30 PST To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 29 Nov 94 13:57:30 PST SUBJECT: University of California Train-the-Trainer Programs Next week the UC IPM Pesticide Education Program will complete its 1994 train-the-trainer programs for trainers of fieldworkers and pesticide handlers. We will have conducted 22 eight-hour programs this year. These programs were attended by over 950 trainers. We are planning another series of train-the-trainer programs during the first six months of 1995, starting in February. Surveys have been sent to Cooperative Extension offices, Agricultural Commissioner offices, and Farm Bureaus in each county of the state to determine where the greatest needs for more programs exist. We are asking them to prioritize the type of training programs needed, specify the best months to conduct the programs, and suggest the most convenient locations for their areas. We have also been compiling a list of people who want to be on our mailing list for future programs. We plan to offer four types of train-the-trainer programs, depending on the need. Each will take 8 hours. These proposed programs are: 1. Workshop to qualify trainers of pesticide handlers AND fieldworkers - conducted entirely in English ($100) 2. Workshop to qualify trainers of pesticide handlers AND fieldworkers - conducted entirely in Spanish ($100) 3. Workshop to qualify trainers of fieldworkers only - conducted entirely in English ($40) 4. Workshop to qualify trainers of fieldworkers only - conducted entirely in Spanish ($40) People attending any of these programs will be able to issue the EPA Worker Protection Standard Training - Worker Verification Cards by entering into an agreement with the Department of Pesticide Regulation. (Remember that PCAs, certified commercial or private applicators, UC Farm Advisors, Ag Biologists, and Registered Foresters are already qualified as trainers and can enter into an agreement with DPR to issue cards without taking one of these courses - although the courses seem to be helpful to them as well.) To help us in our planning, we encourage subscribers to the WPS forum in California to give us some input. Do this by contacting me directly at the address listed below, or contact your local Cooperative Extension, Agricultural Commissioner, or Farm Bureau office. Let us know what your needs are for locations, dates, and types of programs. Patrick J. Marer Pesticide Training Coordinator IPM Education and Publications University of California Davis, CA 95616 (916)752-7694 FAX (916)752-9336 pmarer@ucipm.ucdavis.edu From JIMPSON@cite.esusda.gov Tue Nov 29 14:28:52 1994 Received: from esusda.gov (esusda.gov [192.73.224.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA08646 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 14:28:43 -0800 Received: from apollo.esusda.gov by esusda.gov with SMTP (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/2.9-eef) id AA42905; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 17:30:16 -0500 Received: From CITE/WORKQUEUE by apollo.esusda.gov via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.941129093113.2241; 29 Nov 94 17:28:31 +0500 Message-Id: To: WPS-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: "John Impson of AG" Organization: Extension Service, USDA Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 09:31:07 EDT Subject: WP Interpretative Policy, Q & A X-Pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R1) EPA has just made available latest copy of the Interpretative Policy workgroup's latest on questions and answers re worker protection. For those of you involved in training, this could be a good reference re questions posed. Would suggest you check with the closest EPA Regional office for copies or your state lead agency. John W. Impson National Program Leader-PAT jimpson@esusda.gov From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Nov 29 15:36:28 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 PAA10852 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 1994 15:36:21 -0800 Message-Id: <199411292336.PAA10852@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 15:36:46 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: WP Interpretative Policy Q & A >EPA has just made available latest copy of the Interpretative Policy >workgroup's latest on questions and answers re worker protection. John, Thank you for the alert. Could you get hold of a computer file of the Q&A, or advise who has it? I would place it in forum archive pronto for easy access. Howard