From RBalls@aol.com Sun Oct 2 16:28:35 1994 Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net (mail02.prod.aol.net [192.203.190.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA19797 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 1994 16:28:34 -0700 From: RBalls@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA17604; Sun, 2 Oct 1994 19:28:03 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Sender: "RBalls" Message-Id: <9410021927.tn161933@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Sun, 02 Oct 94 19:27:46 EDT Subject: Re: Steve's EPA-disapproved t... Help, I need to unsubscribe, HELP. From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Mon Oct 3 12:02:02 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA05880 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 12:02:01 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id MAA10736; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 12:02:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199410031902.MAA10736@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0812; Mon, 03 Oct 94 12:01:44 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 3889; Mon, 03 Oct 94 12:01:43 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 8626; Mon, 03 Oct 94 15:01:16 EDT Date: Mon, 03 Oct 94 15:00:00 EDT From: Al French Subject: Training verification To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On Fri, 30 Sep, Doug Edwards said: > Of greater interest to me, though, is the total unenforceability (sp?) < > of field worker training. With no required documnetation the employer < > can't prove that training took place, and I can't really prove that it < > didn't. Any of my fellow regulatory types have any good ideas on this < > subject??? < That is a problem unless the training was provided by persons eligible to issue EPA Training Verification Cards. The WPS provides that possession of an EPA Training Verification Card is prima facie evidence that the worker was trained and that the training was adequate. Regulators need look no further. The easiest and surest way for an employer to "prove" WPS training occurred is simply to use trainers that issue EPA Training Verification Cards or, in the case of workers trained prior to hire, to photocopy the workers' cards. Note: The above may not be true for State training requirements. 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 9/24 Gators rested 10/1 Gators 38 Ole Miss 14 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Oct 3 16:31:03 1994 Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.7.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA13267 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 16:30:59 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id TAA22519; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 19:30:21 -0400 Date: 03 Oct 94 19:24:32 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Doug, training verification Message-ID: <941003232432_73507.555_HHB71-1@CompuServe.COM> Welcome to the forum, Doug. Did you see my posting proposing a national data base for training verification? The next day the Immigration Interim Report came out of a committee on immigration reform. I heard Congresswoman Barbara Jordan explain the controversial recommendations. The gist of it was that employers have no way to verify a persons legal right to be in this country and to work. However the burden of law is on them to do this. The committee proposes a national database for authentication of verification to work in this country. Five pilot programs would include California. Opponents fear that this may lead to the dreaded national identity card. I realized that we cannot even prevent widespread use of false immigration and social security documents, how are we going to do any better with pesticide safety training? The U.S EPA should watch how the committee's recommendations are received, perhaps they can get fieldworker pesticide safety added to the database if a pilot program does get funded. Perhaps California could register its trainers at Agricultural Commissioner's offices and send their data to California DPR using the electronic data transfer system now on line for pesticide use report data. At least we would know a percentage of those trained in the state. Doug, I do not know what the regulatory types are going to do. Perhaps it would be a start to make employees responsible for his or her own conduct. Should it not be a violation to present false training documents to an employer? Oops, I forgot, we can only charge employees with pesticide label violations, if they have been properly trained and informed. Since REIs are on the label, we could take enforcement actions against the employee for that, if they were properly trained and informed. As for the liability of trainers, I do not think this is too great, especially of they are using the approved materials. We have a bunch of newly trained instructors here just eager as can be to begin training workers. Lets not discourage them, they pledged to train one thousand workers each! They are concerned about how they will be able to issue U.S EPA approved training verification cards. I have heard that DPR is going to get that information out any day now. I also suspect that the agricultural commissioners are going to have some part in this training card procedure. Bob Roach 73507,555 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Oct 3 16:33:10 1994 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA13328 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 16:33:09 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id TAA28830; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 19:32:37 -0400 Date: 03 Oct 94 19:29:15 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: how to get archive Message-ID: <941003232914_73507.555_HHB71-4@CompuServe.COM> How does one get a list of all the files in the WPS-forum archive? Bob Roach From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Oct 3 18:11:55 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.101] (gia5mac21.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA15655 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 18:11:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199410040111.SAA15655@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 18:12:40 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: how to get archive >How does one get a list of all the files in the WPS-forum archive? >Bob Roach Bob et al, Sorry if my attempt to be concise last week was only confusing. To get a list of files in archive send to Listproc@are.berkeley.edu the one-line message: INDEX WPS-FORUM Now that you know how to fish, let me present you a fish--the current list of files is below. Probably should do this every so often anyhow. But don't forget how to fish; next week's list will probably have additional items. Howard --------------------------------------------------------- Archive: WPS-FORUM (path: wps-forum) -- Files: 94.may (1 part, 58570 bytes) -- The Month's Messages epa.q-a (1 part, 17735 bytes) -- Questions & Answers The Worker Protection Standard: 1994 Legislative Changes A Guide For Agricultural Employers. runyan (1 part, 34845 bytes) -- Summary of the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. By Jack L. Runyan. sutter (1 part, 11529 bytes) -- Script in English and Spanish of a 9-minute audio cassette prepared by Steve Sutter for fieldworker training on pesticide use. 94.jun (1 part, 75315 bytes) -- The Month's Messages wps.fr1 (1 part, 35519 bytes) -- The WPS as Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. Summary and prefatory information I. Background II. Organization and Summary of the Final Rule [pp. 38102-38106 in FR] wps.fr2 (1 part, 194423 bytes) -- The WPS as Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. III. Provisions of the Final Rule (incl. discussion of comments) [pp. 38106-38132] wps.fr3 (1 part, 57315 bytes) -- The WPS as Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. IV. Labeling Statements (incl. discussion of comments) V. Statutory Review (incl. discussion of comments) [pp. 38132-38139] wps.fr4 (1 part, 49565 bytes) -- The WPS as Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. VI. Implementation VII. Public Docket VIII. Regulatory Requirements [pp. 38139-38146] wps.fr5 (1 part, 33852 bytes) -- The WPS as Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. Part 156 -- Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices [pp. 38146-38151] wps.fr6 (1 part, 96042 bytes) -- The WPS as Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. Part 170 -- Worker Protection Standard [pp. 38151-38166] wps.fr7 (1 part, 58968 bytes) -- The WPS as Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. Proposed Rule on WPS Hazard Information [pp. 38167-38174] wps.fr8 (1 part, 7970 bytes) -- As Published in 8/92 Fed. Reg. Proposed Exeception to WPS Entry Entry Prohibition for Hand Labor Tasks Performed on Cut Flowers and Cut Ferns [pp. 38175-38176] wps.fr9 (1 part, 61251 bytes) -- As Published in 9/92 Fed. Reg. USDA Comment on Draft WPS Regulations [pp. 42472-42480] 94.jul (1 part, 84422 bytes) -- The Month's Messages pubcom.ar1 (1 part, 7037 bytes) -- Compendium of Comments on Draft Rule Introduction Outline of Contents I. Comments on the Organization of the Final Rule pubcom.ar2 (1 part, 131008 bytes) -- Compendium of Comments on Draft Rule II. Comments on the Need and Scope A. Need for Revisions to Present Standards B. The Scope C. Exceptions D. Definitions E. Duties F. Enforcement pubcom.ar3 (1 part, 110323 bytes) -- Compendium of Comments on Draft Rule III. Comments on Provisions of the Proposal A. Pesticide Safety Training and Information B. Training for Handlers C. Training for Early-Entry Workers D. Knowledge of Labeling Information E. Notice of Applications pubcom.ar4 (1 part, 168536 bytes) -- Compendium of Comments on Draft Rule F. Restrictions Associated with Applications G. Entry Restrictions H. Personal Protective Equipment pubcom.ar5 (1 part, 92122 bytes) -- Compendium of Comments on Draft Rule I. Decontamination J. Cholinesterase Monitoring K. Emergency Assistance L. Other Comments IV. Labeling Statements A. Background of Proposal B. Reference Statement C. General Statements D. Restricted-Entry Statements E. Posting Statements F. Personal Protective Equipment Statements G. Other Comments V. Relationship to State Regulations A. National Minimum Standards Approach B. Effect on Existing State Regulations C. State Regulations and Federal Labeling pubcom.ar6 (1 part, 53249 bytes) -- Compendium of Comments on Draft Rule VI. Appendix References in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking References in the final rule Public Comments roses-stay.txt (1 part, 70019 bytes) -- "Rose exception" Technical Amendment to the Early Entry Prohibition for Cut Roses, and the Administrative Stay issued for publication in the Federal Register of June 10, 1994. calprop1.doc (1 part, 102255 bytes) -- California draft reg. revision Discussion Draft (dated June 28, 1994) of Changes in the California Code of Regulations, with Initial Statement of Reasons, to Implement the WPS in California 94.aug (1 part, 133779 bytes) -- The Month's Messages rose-ex.q+a (1 part, 4720 bytes) -- Q & A on Rose Exception EPA Questions & Answers on the Exception To Early Entry Restrictions for Rose Growers 94.sep (1 part, 129376 bytes) -- The Month's Messages nasda.pet (1 part, 25033 bytes) -- NASDA Petition Full text of petition submitted 7/8/94 by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture to EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner, asking for revision of the WPS tr-mats.lst (1 part, 38857 bytes) -- Materials list EPA annotated list of WPS training and informational materials, including items produced by the EPA itself, state agencies, and other organizations guide.ppe (1 part, 13024 bytes) -- PPE Guide Content of brochure "Personal Protective Equipment Guide: Choosing Chemical-Resistant PPE," including the EPA Chemical Resistance Category Selection Chart referenced on pesticide labels htc_all (1 part, 171700 bytes) -- How to Comply manual Complete text of the EPA publication "The Worker Protection Standard For Agricultural Pesticides -- How to Comply". htc_1of3 (1 part, 49487 bytes) -- How to Comply manual First of 3 files with parts of the EPA publication "The Worker Protection Standard For Agricultural Pesticides -- How to Comply"; contains Note on this ASCII version, Prefatory pages, Contents, Unit 1, and Unit 2. htc_2of3 (1 part, 61744 bytes) -- How to Comply manual Second of 3 files with parts of the EPA publication "The Worker Protection Standard For Agricultural Pesticides -- How to Comply"; contains Unit 3 and Unit 4. htc_3of3 (1 part, 60475 bytes) -- How to Comply manual Third of 3 files with parts of the EPA publication "The Worker Protection Standard For Agricultural Pesticides -- How to Comply"; contains Unit 5, Unit 6, Appendix A, and Appendix B. From sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu Tue Oct 4 08:47:54 1994 Received: from dale.ucdavis.edu (dale.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.149]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA23389 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 08:47:53 -0700 From: sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu Received: by dale.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id IAA05962; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 08:47:57 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 08:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szshaffe@dale To: forum wps Subject: Low Contact Activities Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The EPA is negotiating with NASDA concerning the NASDA WPS petition. The first issue they are trying to resolve is what constitutes "low contact activities." NASDA is requesting a list of activities, including what industries should be considered "low contact," the activities associated with that industry, and a BRIEF explanation of why the activity is "low contact." I need to reply to NASDA by 4:30 pm today. Any input is appreciated. Steve Shaffer, CDFA Office of Pesticide Consultation From kaiser@ssnet.com Tue Oct 4 08:49:12 1994 Received: from marlin.ssnet.com (ssnet.com [165.113.8.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA23419 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 08:49:10 -0700 Received: by marlin.ssnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12932; Tue, 4 Oct 94 11:48:13 EDT Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 11:48:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Roger Kaiser Subject: Re: Doug, training verification To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <941003232432_73507.555_HHB71-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This is a request for information. I am scheduled to give a talk about the inpact of pesticides on environment/humans/etc and need information about the number of human posionings and deaths that were caused by agricultural pesticides when used as pesticides. Because of the huge expense and many hours we are all investing in WPS, I expect the data on the dangers, deaths, and sickness caused by pesticides are well documented. This is not exactly my area and I don't know where to look. My audience would like this information however, because it will help them understand how much good we are doing with WPS. I am also on the Symposium Committee for the American Phytopathological Soc. We have discussed having a symposium in 1996 national meeting where we review the progress of WPS. The intent would be to weigh the benefits that have come about after the first 18 months of WPS. We would like to know who is doing the assesment of the results. We are not interrested so much in how many people have been trained or how many have cards, but rather in the benefits to the environment and human health. We assume that these are the reasons that EPA has given us WPS. Thus: Does anyone have numbers on the total cost of WPS? number of man-years for regulators, trainers, growers, workers, etc. cost of materials, books, signs, etc.? Any numbers on the cost due to agricultural pesticides (used as pesticides) in lost work days, wages, or deaths? Any totals or summary document on environmental pollution, groundwater, fish kills, birds kills etc.? I have seen a few papers on this but most of it is very bad science. There is a huge amount of data on environmental fate of individual pesticides but most of these were done for the EPA. They used worst case situation, high rates, repeated applications, etc. and do not reflect real world effects. I would like a summary document on the effects of normal use (not spills and accidents during transport). Thanks, Sorry about the spelling and sentence structure, I wrote this on-line. Dr. Roger Kaiser Smyrna, DE From shenkm@BCC.ORST.EDU Tue Oct 4 09:05:39 1994 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (root@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA24035 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:05:38 -0700 Received: from [128.193.88.177] (Schenk-2036a-I.CORDLEY.ORST.EDU) by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12584; Tue, 4 Oct 94 09:05:32 PDT From: "Myron Shenk" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 09:08:23 CST Message-Id: <32905.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Doug, training verification Some food for thought in regard to the training verification dialogue of Bob and Doug: Oregon OSHA is responsible for enforcement of the WPS in our State, and they have decided that the whole question of training verification is so uncertain that cards are meaningless. Thus, they will use a --performance based standard--. This means that enforcement personnel will determine if a person is adequately trained by asking a series of key questions. If the worker or applicator answers to their satisfaction, they are adequately trained. If not, the employer will be held liable for employing inadequately trained personnel. This sounds somewhat sinister, but OR-OSHA personnel assure us that they will be reasonable in the -examination process-. We are all waiting to see how this will work out in practice. The question of liability of trainers should make every teacher/professor/ minister/priest/rabbi/parent/etc., very nervous. If a student fails to learn, are we going to hold the professor responsible? I see the whole idea of holding trainers liable for the foolish mistake of a trainee as absurd. To say that a trainee who day-dreams through an entire session because they are not interested in learning, is my fault, seems to expect me as a trainer to be more than a magician. This comes close to attributing divinity to a trainer. I know we should take our trining activities seriously, and I do, but this is asking too much in my opinion. Will someone please resolve this whole issue. Thanks!! Myron Shenk, Oregon State University. Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Tue Oct 4 09:39:10 1994 Received: from hinc.hinc.hawaii.gov ([166.122.246.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA25208 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:39:08 -0700 Received: by hinc.hawaii.gov (5.0/SMI-4.1) id AA02148; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 06:34:43 -1000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 06:34:43 +38835 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" Subject: Re: field worker verification To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <940930234945_75222.2562_CHR68-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 1807 On Fri, 30 Sep 1994, Doug Edwards wrote: > I attended a train the trainer seminar given by UC at the Kearney > Ag Center Wednesday and Thursday. I participated as Ag. Commissioner > Representative in the closing discussion. Some interesting points > made re: verification for field worker training. There was concern > expressed by the newly trained trainers regarding liability. A person is > trained, that person violates WPS and becomes exposed. What liability > is absorbed by the trainer who's signature is on the blue card? An > interesting thought for some of you shade tree lawyers. Of greater > interest to me, though, is the total unenforceability (sp?) > of field worker training. With no required documnetation the employer > can't prove that training took place, and I can't really prove that it > didn't. Any of my fellow regulatory types have any good ideas on this > subject??? > > The seminar, by the way, was excellent. Pat Marer, Lupe Sandoval and > Melanie Zavala did a fine job. > > Doug Edwards, Deputy Ag. Commissioner/Fresno County, CA > > We are one of, I believe, four states not participating in EPA's verification program. We have developed a sign-in sheet that trainees sign to indicate *attendance* at a worker/handler training session. It includes date, time, location of training along with other information such as subject matter, language in which training was provided, and name of trainer. We encourage instructor to enclose a copy of class outline or list name of video shown, etc. The trainee signs his/her name and enters his/her SSAN. I do not know if its applicable to California's conditions because of the high number of migrant workers. Hawaii's workforce is relatively stable, and this system, I feel, will work. Gerald HDOA From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Oct 4 09:52:44 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA25666 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:52:41 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA12105; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:52:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:52:28 -0700 Message-Id: <199410041652.JAA12105@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: oil pollutants I have been asked about recycling of motor oil by a fellow Chilean who wants to reduce pollutants. He feels that the growth of agriculture in Chile has had harmful side effects on the environment. After talking to Bill Liebhardt at Sustainable Agriculture (UC Davis) he suggested that Cal EPA may have some information about how this is done. Does anyone have any leads or suggestions? What type of machinery is used? Does it pay for itself? Possible contacts? What can we learn from the US experience? Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Oct 4 09:52:57 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA25682 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:52:56 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA12165; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:52:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:52:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199410041652.JAA12165@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: motor oil pollutants Does anyone have any suggested leads on reducing environmental hazards caused by motor oil pollutants? A fellow Chilean is interested in setting up a system such as what is used in the US where oil is recycled. He wonders what type of machinery is needed, does the recycling pay for itself, and does anyone have any possible leads for people to contact. He feels that the large surge in Chilean agriculture has had some devastating effects on the environment, especially through discarded oils. Bill Liebhardt from the UC Davis sustainable agriculture (SAREP) has suggested that possibly Cal/EPA may be able to help. More than the answers to any of the particular questions, I am looking for the a contact name/phone/address to pass along. Thanks for your help. 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 Oct 4 11:23:19 1994 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA28614 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 11:23:19 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id LAA13473; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 11:23:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199410041823.LAA13473@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5582; Tue, 04 Oct 94 11:22:55 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 0910; Tue, 04 Oct 94 11:19:04 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 5101; Tue, 04 Oct 94 14:19:05 EDT Date: Tue, 04 Oct 94 14:18:05 EDT From: Al French Subject: Pesticide effects data sources To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On October 4, 1994, Roger Kaiser asked: > Does anyone have numbers on the total cost of WPS? number of man-years < > for regulators, trainers, growers, workers, etc. cost of materials, < > books, signs, etc.? < > Any numbers on the cost due to agricultural pesticides (used as < > pesticides) in lost work days, wages, or deaths? < One source for such information is the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the WPS prepared by EPA. Such analyses are required of any agency that proposes a major rule such as the WPS. A contact for this would be Joe Hogue, an economist in the EPA Office of Pesticides, Prevention and Toxic Substances, 703-308-8094. Another data source would be the annual Workplace Injuries and Illnesses reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. California EPA (the State agency in Sacramento) probably has the most detailed pesticide incident reporting system in the nation. Their annual reports are available. 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 9/24 Gators rested 10/1 Gators 38 Ole Miss 14 From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Oct 4 12:59:36 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 MAA01316 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 12:59:35 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id MAA23070; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 12:59:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199410041959.MAA23070@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7613; Tue, 04 Oct 94 12:59:12 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 8243; Tue, 04 Oct 94 12:58:55 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 5798; Tue, 04 Oct 94 15:58:42 EDT Date: Tue, 04 Oct 94 15:55:59 EDT From: Al French Subject: More verification cards To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: If officials enforcing the WPS in Oregon won't accept EPA training verification cards, I'm curious to know how they rationalize that with the WPS. And has EPA blessed this interpretation? The WPS regulation (Sec. 170.130(d) @ 38159) states: "(d) Verification of training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, if the agricultural employer assures that a worker possesses an EPA-approved worker protection standard worker training certificate, then the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will have been met." Paragraph (a) is the training requirement itself; paragraph (d)(2) refers to fraudulent and expired certificates. On October 4, 1994, Myron Shenk said: > Oregon OSHA is responsible for enforcement of the WPS in our State, and < > they have decided that the whole question of training verification is so < > uncertain that cards are meaningless. Thus, they will use a --performance < > based standard--. This means that enforcement personnel will determine if < > a person is adequately trained by asking a series of key questions. If < > the worker or applicator answers to their satisfaction, they are < > adequately trained. If not, the employer will be held liable for < > employing inadequately trained personnel. < 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 9/24 Gators rested 10/1 Gators 38 Ole Miss 14 From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Oct 4 13:12:02 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 NAA01635 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 13:11:59 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HHVUBS95BK8WWW7S@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:59:23 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HHVU70S1GG8ZET7F@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:55:54 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:55:27 EDT MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Tue, 04 Oct 1994 15:55:27 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 04 Oct 1994 15:36:00 -0400 (EDT) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: Re: Doug, training verification To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HHVU7SI1BA8ZET7F@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Tue, 04 Oct 1994 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;72555140014991/1757015@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Roger: I can direct you where to phrase some of your questions. In terms of costs of WPS training and record keeping, EPA had to submit an estimate of costs to OBM. Call Kevin Keaney, Field Operations Division/Occupational Safety Branch 703-305-7666. He coordinated the paperwork for OMB. In terms of human incidents, the state of California has a database that collects information concerning reported and diagnosed pesticide poisonings on a product basis. For more information, you can contact Jerome Blondell at EPA 703-305-5336. In terms of fish kills and bird kills, try contacting EPA's Environmental Fate and Effects group. Skee Jones would be able to direct your questions to the right member of that group. He can be reached at 703-305-7416. Judy Smith/EPA From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Tue Oct 4 14:45:42 1994 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA05014 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 14:45:41 -0700 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.9/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id OAA02578 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 14:45:38 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 14:45:38 -0700 Message-Id: <199410042145.OAA02578@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: Myron Shenk and OR-OSHA exams Myron, Please keep us posted with OR-OSHA and the training examination process of workers and handlers. I think all of us wonder how can you measure "trained" without a sample of knowledge learned, but who wants to be responsible to do the sampling let alone be liable for those who choose not to learn basic pesticide safety. Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Tue Oct 4 14:57:45 1994 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA05482 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 14:57:44 -0700 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.9/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id OAA03082 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 14:57:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 14:57:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199410042157.OAA03082@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: sorted recipient file I sorted the recipient list for WPS-Forum, thought you might be interested. CROWLEY@SHEP.AGSCI.COLOSTATE.EDU Ron Ackerman CEINDIO@UCDAVIS.EDU Jose Aguiar KAPLEY@CERES.AGSCI.COLOSTATE.EDU Kathryn Apley APPEL@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU D. M. Appel AZBAAMEUR@UCDAVIS.EDU Aziz Baameur <@UKCC.UKY.EDU:SMBAIL00@UKCC.UKY.EDU> Stephanie Bailey PBAKER@AG.ARIZONA.EDU Paul Baker AGDBAKER@MUCCMAIL.MISSOURI.EDU David Baker G.TALMADGE.BALCH@ACENET.AUBURN.EDU George Balch CEIMPERIAL@UCDAVIS.EDU Khaled Bali BANECKI@WVNVAXA.WVNET.EDU John Baniecki ISSDB@TREX.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU David Baumbauer DBAYER@USAID.GOV David Bayer WHITEE@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU Joe Becovitz BOB_BELLINGER@QUICKMAIL.CLEMSON.EDU Robert Bellinger JMBT@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Jerry Bennett ZAX0114@AOL.COM Zach Berkowitz GEBILLIKOPF@UCDAVIS.EDU Gregorio Billikopf ABSINTHE@NATURE.BERKELEY.EDU Norman Birchfield JBOWERS@CITE.ESUSDA.GOV Judith Bowers JBRACK@DELPHI.COM Jim Brackeen <@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU:HOWARDCO@EXT.MISSOURI.EDU> Melvin Brees BARRY@HPIRS.STJOHN.HAWAII.EDU Barry Brennan DBRETH@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Deborah Breth BRICHER@U.WASHINGTON.EDU R. Marie Bricher AMY_E_BROWN@UMAIL.UMD.EDU Amy Brown BRUNC@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU Charles Brun BURGESS@UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU Gene Burgess MFB6@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV Mary Ann Butler METZNER@UCSVAX.SDSU.EDU Fred Cagle CASTERLN@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Gary Casterline CASTILLO@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Federico Castillo RCAVALET@OBOE.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU Richard Cavaletto PATRIC6548@AOL.COM Patrick Cavanaugh CHAMBERLAIN@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU Everett Chamberlain C531539@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU Rhi-Kao Chang HCHENG@SOILS.UMN.EDU H. H. Cheng SCLARK@NATURE.BERKELEY.EDU Sue Clark NCLIFTON@ENT.UMASS.EDU Natalia Clifton CHARLOTTE_COFFMAN@QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU Charlotte Coffman WCOLI@COOPEXT.UMASS.EDU William Coli DCRESS@OZ.OZNET.KSU.EDU Don Cress SDAVIS@AGECON.CONNER.UGA.EDU Stephen Davis JMDAVIS@FLETCHER.CES.NCSU.EDU Jeanine Davis TWD@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Thomas Dean HOWARDD@EXTSPARC.AGSCI.USU.EDU Howard Deer <@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU:EX069@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU> Gary Deoms 74201.474@COMPUSERVE.COM Kathleen Dickey USSRD@TREX.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU Ray Ditterline <@UVMVM.UVM.EDU:PDOWNER@CLOVER.UVM.EDU> Pat Downer RDNCN@PRISM.CLEMSON.EDU Russell Duncan GADSDEN@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Bobby Durden 75222.2562@COMPUSERVE.COM Doug Edwards EMENHEISER_WILLIAM_E/AMER_ADMIN@QAD.COM William Emenheiser RDE@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Robert Emerson RAERNST@UCDAVIS.EDU Ralph Ernst R-FERREE@UIUC.EDU Rhonda Ferree <@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Al French BRUCEG@AREC.UMD.EDU Bruce Gardner GEORGES@ECRU.UCL.AC.BE Benoit Georges GEYER@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Leon Geyer JGIBBONS@CCE.CORNELL.EDU John Gibbons CDIMPERIAL@UCDAVIS.EDU Cuco Gonzalez MGRAJALE@UCRAC1.UCR.EDU Myriam Grajales-Hall JGRANT@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Jennifer Grant GRAVES.JAMES@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV James Graves EHARRING@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Eric Harrington CRAIG.HARRIS@SSC.MSU.EDU Craig Harris EHARWOOD@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Ed Harwood LHASSRIC@MAIL2.LMI.ORG Locke Hassrick HAWKINS@EMPM.CDPR.CA.GOV Lyndon Hawkins ED@WAYNE.ACN.PURDUE.EDU Ed Heckman DEANH@PUCCINI.CRL.UMN.EDU Dean Herzfeld SEHIGBY@UCDAVIS.EDU Sandra Higby FHIOTT@PRISM.CLEMSON.EDU Floyd Hiott LBH@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Loretta Hodyss GHOSTETT@A1.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU Greg Hostetter LHOWE@WILSON.CES.NCSU.EDU Lewis Howe SHOYING@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Stephen Hoying THGHSLR@PRISM.CLEMSON.EDU Tammy Hughes-Lark <@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU:PALMBEACH@QCY> Clayton Hutcheson JIMPSON@CITE.ESUSDA.GOV JohnW. Impson <@RELAY1.HAWAII.EDU:IWATA@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU> Ruth Iwata JACKSON_G@WISPLAN.UWEX.WISC.EDU Gary Jackson JANES@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU Harry W. Janes 72712.2100@COMPUSERVE.COM Robert Johnson UEYGJ@TREX.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU Greg Johnson DJOHNSO2@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU Douglas B. Johnson MJOHNSON@CA.UKY.EDU Monte Johnson SZKABASH@BULLWINKLE.UCDAVIS.EDU John Kabashima KAISER@SSNET.COM Roger Kaiser HN0610@HANDSNET.ORG Ann Katten DANA@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Dana E. Keil JOSEPH.M.KEMBLE@ACENET.AUBURN.EDU Joe Kemble KICKRAACK@AGVAX2.AG.OHIO-STATE.EDU Joanne Kick-Raack AIKING@UCDAVIS.EDU Ann King GKINRO@HINC.HAWAII.GOV Gerald Y. Kinro WKLEINER@A1.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU William Kleiner 73163.3106@COMPUSERVE.COM Tom Kraemer ROBERT_J_KRATOCHVIL@UMAIL.UMD.EDU Robert Kratochvil RIVRK@ARS-GRIN.GOV Robert Krueger HARCAT@ONRSHA.AGR.CA Andrea Labaj LAMBERTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Mary Lamberts RELANE@UCDAVIS.EDU Ron Lane DAL@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Dani Lee JLOHRMANN@IGC.APC.ORG Jeff Lohrmann LOVEJOY@AGECON.PURDUE.EDU Steve Lovejoy FXMANGAN@PSSCI.UMASS.EDU Frank Mangan PMARER@UCIPM.UCDAVIS.EDU Patrick Marer MMMATA@UCDAVIS.EDU Michael Mata RMCALLIS@FIELDOFDREAMS.CERIS.PURDUE.EDU Ray Mcallister 74077.53@COMPUSERVE.COM Tim Mcpherson BILL_MILLER@QUICKMAIL.CLEMSON.EDU Bill Miller MILLERT@OES.ORST.EDU Terry Miller <@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU:JMMOORE@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> J. Michael Moore AGLINE@AOL.COM Jim Moore RUTHM@MCES.MSSTATE.EDU Ruth Morgan 72760.1152@COMPUSERVE.COM Roy A. Motter PEST1@UCRAC1.UCR.EDU James Mueller MAGNAPUBS@WISPLAN.UWEX.WISC.EDU Barbara Mulhern CHARLIE@HPIRS.STJOHN.HAWAII.EDU Charles Nagamine TNALLY@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Tom Nally JEFF@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Jeff Nelson ONN@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Norman Nesheim MNOBLE@MERCURY.UARK.EDU Martha Noble EENTAT@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Maxcy Nolan BOBRIEN@GAC.EDU Brian A. Obrien OLTJEN@CHARLY.UCDAVIS.EDU Jim Oltjen TWO@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Tom Oswalt DICKOTT2@AOL.COM George Ott LOWEN@GALAXY.GOV.BC.CA Lorne Owen DG631@EEYORE.INS.CWRU.EDU Elizabeth Owens PARKRH@CSAG1.DNET.DUPONT.COM Bob Park PEARSON@VEGMAIL.UCDAVIS.EDU Garry Pearson APESA@ACME.FREENET.COLUMBUS.OH.US Arthur Pesa PETRITZ@ACN.PURDUE.EDU David Petritz PFEIFER@AGECON.PURDUE.EDU Rebecca Pfeifer S.PINI@AGORA.STM.IT Sefano Pini HJP@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Heather Pirozzoli EZ043738@OTHELLO.UCDAVIS.EDU Michele Quinn RAMSAY@MAIL.WSU.EDU Carol Ramsay MRAYBURN@CHOWAN.CES.NCSU.EDU Marjorie Rayburn <@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU:REDELFSM@EXT.MISSOURI.EDU> Maryann Redelfs RICHARDS.JOHN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV John Richards 73507.555@COMPUSERVE.COM Robert Roach SBR@WORLD.STD.COM Stephen Ronan <@UKCC.UKY.EDU:SOC219@UKCC.UKY.EDU> Gil Rosenberg HOWARDR@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Howard Rosenberg ROSSEEL.KEVIN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Kevin Rosseel ROWE@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Gordon Rowe RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Kay Rudolph LRUFF@WAYNE.CES.NCSU.EDU Linda Ruff RUGGE@LIFESCI.LSCF.UCSB.EDU Barron Rugge <@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU:JRUNYAN@ERS.BITNET> Jack Runyan ROYR@CDPRSMTP.CDPR.CA.GOV Roy Rutz SAMULIS@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU Ray Samulis SAS@NMDAIBM.NMSU.EDU Sherry Sanderson LSNDVL@UCIPM.UCDAVIS.EDU Lupe Sandoval SCHUPPJF@SUN.AITC.REST.TASC.COM Jon Schupp SESSIONS@AMRF-PO.PMEH.UIOWA.EDU Julie Sessions LS23@CORNELL.EDU Linda Seyler SDSHAFFER@UCDAVIS.EDU Steve Shaffer BSHAW@ACS.TAMU.EDU Bryan Shaw SHENKM@BCC.ORST.EDU Myron Shenk SZSINGLE@HAMLET.UCDAVIS.EDU Robert Singleton HORACE_SKIPPER@QUICKMAIL.CLEMSON.EDU Horace Skipper RDSHS@AOL.COM Reed Smith WSMITH@CCE.CORNELL.EDU William Smith LSMITH@ROBESON.CES.NCSU.EDU Laurie Smith KSMITH@ASRR.ARSUSDA.GOV Kent Smith SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Judy Smith SGROWER1@RAIN.ORG Phil Soderman SSOUTHER@ENT1.ENT.NCSU.EDU Sterling Southern BSPAUGH@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Beth Spaugh VINEGUY@AOL.COM Andrew Spradley PWALTERS@UAEX.ARKNET.EDU Ples Spradley MCSTILES@UCDAVIS.EDU Martha Stiles BOZ@HOLONET.NET Hilary Stoermer 76247.124@COMPUSERVE.COM Maureen Stubblefield CEFRESNO@UCDAVIS.EDU Steve Sutter STEW@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Stewart Swanson TABRAHAM@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Betsey Tabraham CTELGHED@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Craig Telgheder TIETJEN@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU William Tietjen PTIGHE@NETCOM.COM Pat Tighe GTINGOS@RAIN.ORG Guy Tingos LTOWNSEN@CA.UKY.EDU Lee Townsen M.TURNER@MASSEY.AC.NZ Max Turner KUMBACH@RESOURCE.CA.GOV Ken Umbach MART_VANKIRK@QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU Mart Vankirk LGVARELA@UCDAVIS.EDU Lucia Varela VAUXTR@CSAG1.DNET.DUPONT.COM Tim Vaux PVITTUM@ENT.UMASS.EDU Pat Vittum CAMDEN@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU Linda Vorsa WALDRON@AMRF-PO.PMEH.UIOWA.EDU Peter Waldron WALLE@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA Ellen Wall AWALLER@MDA-AG.MDA.STATE.MN.US Alice Waller SZEWEBER@BULLWINKLE.UCDAVIS.EDU Ed Weber SLWEBER@UCDAVIS.EDU Stephanie Weber PWESTFAL@CCE.CORNELL.EDU Paul Westfall WHEELERW@CSRS.ESUSDA.GOV Willis Wheeler DWHT@PRISM.CLEMSON.EDU Donald White SWHITNEY@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU Susan Whitney RBW@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Robert Whitty WILLIAMR@BCC.ORST.EDU Ray William PCOHIO!ROB.WILLIAMS@WARIAT.ORG Rob Williams X1WINTER@EXNET.IASTATE.EDU Wendy Wintersteen REW@AGE2.AGE.UIUC.EDU Robert Wolf NORWONG@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Noreen Wong M1AGBIO@EXNET.IASTATE.EDU Karol Wrage YAMS@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU Susan Yamins YARKIN@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Cherisa Yarkin RBALLS@AOL.COM Clayton Yuen ZILBER@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU David Zilberman TZIMMERM@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Tom Zimmerman RICKB8@AOL.COM Rickb8@aol.com TJLOVELACE@AOL.COM Tjlovelace@aol.com Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Oct 4 15:35:54 1994 Received: from [128.32.251.103] (gia5mac23.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA06526 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:35:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199410042235.PAA06526@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:36:39 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: EPA letter on dealing with the NASDA petition A copy of the following letter was provided to WPS-Forum by Mark C. Nestlen, Manager of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. It is posted with the concurrence of Mr. James V. Aidala, Jr., Associate Assistant Administrator of the U.S. EPA. While this letter focuses mainly on the topic of low contact exceptions to early entry restrictions, it also addresses the eight other topics raised in NASDA's July 8 petition to EPA. Mr. Nestlen notes, "it is clear that we have a lot of work to do in a very short time." The Agency expects to complete a formal response to the petition by October 22. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES [stamped Sep 30 1994] Mr. Richard W. Kirchhoff Executive Vice President and CEO National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 1156-15th Street Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Kirchhoff: On September 27, you attended a meeting on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) with Jim Aidala, my Associate Assistant Administrator, and other members of my staff. I appreciate your work in resolving concerns about WPS provisions and implementation. As promised in that meeting, I am providing information on the process that we could follow to address "low contact" activities under the WPS. I want to reiterate that the Agency is committed to working with you and the other parties interested in an exception to WPS prohibitions on worker entry to a pesticide-treated area during a restricted entry interval. A great deal of effort will be needed, both from you and from the Agency, to define and establish such an exception. The Agency is committed to providing the needed resources for this undertaking. As you know, in anticipation of the need to adapt WPS requirements in the agricultural community, the WPS includes a process to request exceptions to early entry limitations. The process allows the Agency to work quickly when we have the information needed to support our decision. As you know, the process and the information needs are described in the WPS (40 CFR 170.112(e)). I propose that we meet early next week to (1) list the activities that could be the subject of a low contact exception, (2) set out a plan and a schedule for compiling information needed to support an exception, and (3) establish a schedule for the Agency to prepare and propose an exception. The list of activities will include a range of tasks and circumstances where the amount of worker contact to pesticides depends on variables such as height and density of the crops, the nature of the activity, the surface that contains the residues, and whether residues are dry or wet. So that we can begin work quickly on some, if not all, of the activities, I propose that we list separately those activities that are most assuredly low contact situations. For these activities, you may be able to supply the needed information quickly and then we would expect to proceed with a proposed exception in a matter of weeks. For activities where we are not confident that exposure will be low, more supporting information would be required. Assuming we receive the needed information by the end of the month, we will work to propose the exception by mid or late November. For the first set of activities that are most assuredly low contact situations, we expect to meet a January 1 completion date. A January 1 completion date also is possible for any exception covering those activities that require more supporting information. You requested that EPA consider California's definition of low contact activity when we prepare a low contact exception for the WPS. I understand that a formal exception request is being prepared using the California approach. When we reviewed the California regulations, we found that, rather than defining low contact activities, they refer to and prohibit activities that would involve substantial and prolonged contact. The prohibited activities include hand harvesting, pruning, weeding, and any other activities that involve similar body contact with treated plants. The California regulations illustrate an approach to early entry and the Agency is contacting the State to request the information used to establish this approach. The Agency will be seeking public comment on a proposed exception for low contact irrigation activities. This exception was requested by producers in Hawaii and California. Based on the information received, the Agency expects to have any final exceptions in place by January 1. The Agency has worked with other organizations to define early entry exceptions that will not compromise worker safety. We are committed to working with you to propose an exception for other low contact activities. We will help you in defining the information needed and will expedite the review and proposal process in every way possible. We realize that you are seeking to have the process completed by January 1 and we will work with you and others toward that date. We can assure you that there will be no unnecessary delays and we will keep all parties informed of our progress. At the same time, we are sure you share our concern that worker safety is not compromised and understand that our evaluation must be a careful one. Exceptions must be clearly stated so that they can be easily understood by producers who must apply exceptions to their individual situations as well as by your member agencies responsible for implementing the WPS. This letter focuses on the topic of low contact exceptions to early entry restrictions which is one of the nine topics in your July 8 petition the Agency. The Agency will complete the formal response to your petition by October 22. However, I would like to briefly address each of the other eight topics in this letter. Your petition included proposals to revise WPS training requirements and the requirements for crop advisors. As you know, the Agency is addressing these issues through the rulemaking process and soon will propose changes to these WPS provisions for public comment. We will work to conclude the rule making process as soon as possible after 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. After proposing the revisions, the Agency intends to issue guidance to States that will describe the potential revisions and recommend enforcement discretion until the crop advisor provisions are formally revised in early 1995. We also will continue our communication efforts with crop advisor organizations to ensure that they are informed of revisions to the rule. Your petition also raises two issues about liability. One item concerns the responsibility for use of required protective equipment. The other item concerns absentee landlords and asks about their responsibilities under the WPS. The second item also raises the issue of the agricultural employers' WPS responsibilities to contract laborers. I am preparing a letter that will be completed next week to state clearly the Agency's interpretation of employer responsibilities under the WPS. We should then use this letter to initiate focused discussions about these issues and any possible resolution. I will set up an early October meeting on these issues. I believe that at least one of the issues concerning absentee landlord responsibilities has already been addressed by the Agency in guidance to explain when they are responsible for providing WPS protections to employees. On the issue concerning employer responsibility for protective equipment use, I am proposing to set up a meeting within the next two weeks that will include Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) staff and other interested parties to review the WPS requirements and to compare them to OSHA requirements in similar situations. Our goal is to identify areas where the WPS requirements could parallel employer responsibilities under OSHA health regulations. During the meeting we will be having with you early in October, we will discuss your concerns about employer responsibility when they employ workers through labor contractors. In this area, we intend to issue guidance to employers about their responsibilities, including language that they may include in their labor contracts to help them ensure that the contractors provide the WPS protections to workers. We also will initiate an outreach program to ensure that labor contractors are informed about WPS responsibilities. We intend to complete this effort by the end of the year. Your petition includes a proposal to establish restricted entry intervals based on actual exposure. The Agency will be issuing a Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) to pesticide companies allowing them to change their labels to reduce the restricted entry interval for many products in toxicity categories 3 and 4 from 12 hours to 4 hours. The PRN will be published in the Federal Register for public comment in late October or early November and the final PRN published before January 1. This change corresponds to many of the changes proposed in your matrix for the Tox 3 and 4 products. It does not address the portions for your proposal for the more toxic products in toxicity categories 1 and 2. I propose that NASDA revise its matrix after we issue the PRN for the Tox 3 and 4 products. We could then address this portion of your petition separately, publishing it and requesting public comment. It is likely that you will be petitioning for changes that will require a rule revision (a change to the 4 hour no entry period after application) and changes that could be accomplished through a PRN to pesticide registrants (changes to REIs). After we receive your revised petition, we will work together to establish the schedule for requesting public comment and then for the additional required steps. The duration of decontamination supplies for workers also is included in your petition. The Agency supports the thirty-day requirement based on supporting data that are included in the WPS public record. I understand that you will resubmit this portion of your petition and I propose that we first meet to review our supporting data and discuss your July 8 request. We will publish your resubmitted petition on this topic for public comment. Your final issue concerning bilingual requirements includes a misunderstanding about the training requirements. The WPS requires that training be conducted in the language the worker understands. The EPA produced its training materials in English and in Spanish because of the large Spanish-speaking worker population. Training is not required in Spanish, except for workers who speak only Spanish. The WPS field warning sign is printed in both English and Spanish and the WPS requires use of this sign. The State of Hawaii has proposed use of a field warning sign that substitutes the language spoken by most Hawaiian workers for the Spanish. I believe that the Hawaii request is more than reasonable and have asked our EPA Region 9 staff to resolve it as soon as possible. I will report back to you on this issue next week. Please let me know immediately if you have any further comments or suggestions. I look forward to working with you and will be contacting you to set up a time for a meeting next week. Sincerely, [signed: James V. Aidala for] Lynn R. Goldman, M.D. Assistant Administrator From shenkm@BCC.ORST.EDU Tue Oct 4 16:01:45 1994 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (root@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA07633 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 16:01:44 -0700 Received: from [128.193.88.177] (Schenk-2036a-I.CORDLEY.ORST.EDU) by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06516; Tue, 4 Oct 94 16:01:36 PDT From: "Myron Shenk" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 16:04:34 CST Message-Id: <57875.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: More verification cards Al, as usual, I exercised too many editorial privileges in saying that OR- OSHA has said . I wish I had chosen my words more carefully, simply saying that they have decided not to depend on verification cards to determine traning adequacy, but have decided to use a performance based standard. Oregon law permits State Agencies to have rules that are more strict or demanding, but not more leinent, than Federal standards. EPA has recognized that states have this privilege, and they have said that states can be as harsh as they want, but that EPA will not accept a lesser standard implemented at a state level. Oregon is more strict than the new WPS on three or four points. Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Wed Oct 5 11:29:12 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 LAA03581 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 11:29:11 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id LAA21899; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 11:29:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199410051829.LAA21899@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0012; Wed, 05 Oct 94 11:28:46 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 3142; Wed, 05 Oct 94 11:28:24 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 1799; Wed, 05 Oct 94 14:28:25 EDT Date: Wed, 05 Oct 94 14:24:12 EDT From: Al French Subject: Honoring verification cards To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: On October 4, Myron Shenk said: > Oregon law permits State Agencies to have rules that are more strict or < > demanding, but not more leinent, than Federal standards. EPA has < > recognized that states have this privilege, and they have said that states < > can be as harsh as they want, but that EPA will not accept a lesser < > standard implemented at a state level. Oregon is more strict than the new < > WPS on three or four points. < Myron, that's true in part, but there exists an important distinction. It is true that FIFRA* Sec. 24(a) provides that a State may restrict a federally registered _product_ beyond EPA requirements. But Sec. 24(b) states that States may not impose requirements for _labeling_ "in addition to or different from" EPA regulation. Since the WPS is an extension of labeling rather than product registration the contention is that the statutory Federal preemption would apply to the WPS and, thus, States may not impose different requirements. That is why I am interested to know whether Oregon's policy to not recognize training verification cards is casual or formal, and whether EPA's approval has been sought or obtained. If the statutory preemption is not applied to the WPS, there could be many different State standards with the WPS being simply the minimum standard. Does anyone have information that other States may have worker pesticide protection requirements that exceed the WPS? *Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Al French From shenkm@BCC.ORST.EDU Wed Oct 5 14:44:03 1994 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (root@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA02069 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 14:44:02 -0700 Received: from [128.193.88.177] (Schenk-2036a-I.CORDLEY.ORST.EDU) by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22333; Wed, 5 Oct 94 14:43:57 PDT From: "Myron Shenk" Date: Wed, 5 Oct 94 14:46:52 CST Message-Id: <53213.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Honoring verification cards Al, if I understand correctly, EPA has taken the position that training is mandatory, while issuance of training cards is voluntary. Thus, I think that OR-OSHA would argue that for OR-OSHA to require slightly more detail in respirator-fit training, or the performance based standard does not violate the label, but is simply attempting to improve the trainig. I think they would argue the same about increasing the amount of water required at decontamination sites, etc. Maybe I can get them to get involved in this forum, if they have the proper equipment. Cheers. Myron Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From 75222.2562@compuserve.com Wed Oct 5 15:58:27 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 PAA04096 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:58:26 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id SAA04503; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 18:57:55 -0400 Date: 05 Oct 94 18:53:00 EDT From: Doug Edwards <75222.2562@compuserve.com> To: Subject: grace period Message-ID: <941005225259_75222.2562_CHR80-1@CompuServe.COM> On 30-Sept-94 Steve Sutter posted (displayed): >A Chowchilla grower suggested today the California DPR permit a week's >"grace" for fieldworker training, so he could train once a week for new >seasonal employees. Looking over DPR's proposed regs for fieldworker training (CCR 6764) there appears not to be a time frame for training such as there is for handlers. Nothing then would preclude such a grace period. Current WPS regs allow 15 days until 10/1997 and then 5 days thereafter. I think that 7 days would be a good figure to settle on, allowing for the employer to establish weekly training sessions; a necessity around here where labor is intensive and the work force changes frequently. Doug Edwards From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Thu Oct 6 08:36:52 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA19992 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 08:36:51 -0700 From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id IAA10183; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 08:34:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 08:34:28 -0700 Message-Id: <199410061534.IAA10183@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject:more news from fresno Cc:cefresno@ucdavis.EDU >From Steve Sutter, UC Area Personnel Management Farm Advisor, Fresno, (209) 456-7560. Also board member of Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, 6,000 members. Hi. A Kingsburg grower, who hasn't applied restricted-use pesticides in 2 years, asked me how to qualify as a WPS trainer. He's "organic." He missed UC Davis IPM's 2-day sweep through nearby Parlier that trained 80. I suggested he join neighbors in the ag commissioners' annual "pass/pass" exam to become a certified private applicator. UCD IPM's able force of 3 currently holds a train-the-trainer "monopoly," in this mammoth agricultural State. And my newsletter reader in Yreka called me to request a train-the-trainer session in Redding, reminding me there's a lot of Spanish-speaking workers in northern California's forest industries. I gave her your number Pat. Good to hear from Gerald Kinro on 10/4/94. Hawaii's employee training verification process makes sense to me. It would work here, if Cal/EPA gives employers a week's grace to instruct new seasonal field workers. It's noteworthy our most "breathtaking" State rejected US EPA's worker training cards, for something more sensible. Speaking of cards... During the break in one of numerous WPS seminars I've participated in, an Orange Cove farm labor contractor said "he could get me as many EPA-approved WPS worker training certificates as I needed." I trust he was joking. I said I had yet to see what one looks like. I also informed him the recent anti-crime bill hits hard at government document counterfeiters. If he got caught 3 times crafting bogus WPS training cards, he'd be put away for life! "Fresno Clear." From sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu Thu Oct 6 14:42:20 1994 Received: from dale.ucdavis.edu (dale.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.149]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA11274 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:42:19 -0700 From: sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu Received: by dale.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id OAA11247; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:41:40 -0700 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:41:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szshaffe@dale To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: sdshaffer@ucdavis.edu Subject: CDFA WPS update In-Reply-To: <199410062107.OAA06811@are.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > The Office of Pesticide Consultation and Analysis, California Department of > Food and Agriculture, has prepared an update on proposed modifications of > the WPS. This document will be placed in the WPS-Forum archive tonight as > "cdfa-up.sep". To obtain a copy, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the > message: > > GET WPS-FORUM CDFA-UP.SEP > > Below is a portion of this document, a summary of "equivalencies" that the > California Department of Pesticide Regulation is proposing to incorporate > into the state Code of Regulations to meet WPS requirements. > > Valerie Brown > Steve Shaffer > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > CDPR Equivalency Requests > > Employee\Worker Notification > > The rule requires that workers be notified of applications and of the > location of the treated areas, and that the information required to be > given workers be displayed at a central location. CDPR is asking > equivalency for their amended Section 6618 which will require employers > to notify those workers that are likely to come within one-quarter of a > mile of the treated field and that the notification be adequate for the > initial 24-hour notice, instead of having to display the information at > a central location before the application. > > > Greenhouse Ventilation > > The rule prohibits entry into a treated greenhouse until the air > concentration level is measured to be less than the standard on the > label. If no standard is on the label, the rule lists six methods of > ventilating the greenhouse. CDPR is asking equivalency to provide more > flexibility. It lists the same six methods as the rule but also allows > any combination of the methods as long as the total of 100% ventilation > is achieved. > > > Safety Information for Field Worker > > CDPR is asking that the safety information required by the rule be > provided at the field via their Pesticide Safety Information Series > (PSIS) A-9, instead of a central location. The current PSIS A-9 would > be revised to include all the safety information required under the > rule. > > > Field Signs > > CDPR is asking to be allowed to retain the Skull and Crossbones design > for field posting signs instead of the rule-required Upheld Hand and > Stern Face. > > > Treated Field Definition > > CDPR is asking to continue using the current California definition of a > treated field. In California, a field is treated until the end of the > growing season. The rule defines a field as treated for thirty days. > > > Application Information > > CDPR is asking that the use report be allowed to convey application > information to workers regarding treated areas. The use report does not > have a place for identifying the active ingredient, which is required by > the rule. > > > Regarding the use of training cards, while CDPR intends to honor and > recognize the worker training cards from other states, it will not > recognize handler training cards from other states. Those handlers who > come to California from other states will have to be trained here and > receive verification here on a yearly basis. From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Thu Oct 6 16:43:28 1994 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA24767 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 16:43:28 -0700 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.9/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id QAA25872 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 16:43:22 -0700 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 16:43:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199410062343.QAA25872@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: Job announcement for Bilingual Educator Washington State Department of Agriculture has an open competitive position available as an Agricultural Chemical Specialist 2 with Spanish required. The salary range is $2143-2728 (range 42) but the assignment pay is actually $2245-2865 per month (range 44). Positions with bilingual skills, American Sign language, or Braille are paid basic salary plus two ranges. There is one opening with the Department of Agriculure located in Yakima or Wenatchee. The exact location will be determined at time of employment. This register will be used to fill vacancies as they occur in Yakima or Wenatchee. Duties include using a variety of methods to develop and implement (1) a bilingual (English/Spanish) pesticide licensing training program covering the proper and safe use, storage, and disposal of pesticides for farmworkers responsible for mixing, loading and/or applying pesticides, and (2) a bilingual (English/Spanish) pesticide safety program for general farmworkers who may come into contact with pesticides through routine farm labor practices. This program is aimed at reducing the risk of illness or injury resulting from farm laborer exposure to pesticides and to meet the training requirements of the federal Worker Protection Standard. Special requirements include the ability to understand, speak, write, and read Spanish and English. Minimum requirements include (1) one year as an Agricultural Chemical Specialist 1, or (2) a bachelor;s degree involving major study in agriculture, chemistry, agronomy, forestry, horticulture, animal science or other closely related fields AND one year experience in work similar to Agricultural Chemical Specialist 1 in environmental, educational, or health regulatory work OR two years of experience in other agircultural governmental work or commercial production or ornamental or agirucltural crops or the formulation or distribution of agricultural chemicals. A graduate degree in areas identififed in the education requirement above may be substituted for one year of required experience. A bachelor dergree with major study in education will be accepted provided a minor was achieved in one of the study areas listed above. Qualifying experience will substitute, year for year, for up to two years of education. For more information and the formal announcement, contact Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Licensing and Recertification, P.O. Box 42589, Olympia, WA 98504-2589 or 206-902-2015 or 902-2016. Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From 75222.2562@compuserve.com Fri Oct 7 14:27:44 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 OAA28377 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 1994 14:27:35 -0700 Received: from localhost by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id RAA15632; Fri, 7 Oct 1994 17:27:04 -0400 Date: 07 Oct 94 17:18:44 EDT From: Doug Edwards <75222.2562@compuserve.com> To: Subject: training & verification Message-ID: <941007211843_75222.2562_CHR47-1@CompuServe.COM> On 10/4 Steve Sutter Posted: > A Kingsburg grower, who hasn't applied restricted-use pesticides in > 2 years, asked me how to qualify as a WPS trainer. He's "organic." > He missed UC Davis IPM's 2-day sweep through nearby Parlier that > trained 80. I suggested he join neighbors in the ag commissioners' > annual "pass/pass" exam to become a certified private applicator. > > Speaking of cards... During the break in one of numerous WPS seminars > I've participated in, an Orange Cove farm labor contractor said > "he could get me as many EPA-approved WPS worker training certificates > as I needed." I trust he was joking. I said I had yet to see what one > looks like. I also informed him the recent anti-crime bill hits hard at > government document counterfeiters. If he got caught 3 times crafting > bogus WPS training cards, he'd be put away for life! "Fresno Clear." Hi Steve... We welcome your Kingsburg organic grower at our certified applicator workshop. We will have a schedule by November 1 and start sessions about 11/15. He will have to take one more step, however, and obtain a restricted materials permit because a certified private applicator is defined as a "holder of a valid restricted materials permit" I too am concerned about counterfeit cards. Perhaps Bob Roach's idea of some sort of registry of valid cards would be a good idea. By the by I just happen to have a sample card. Come by for a cup of coffee and I'll let you see it Doug Edwards, Fresno County Deputy CAC From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Oct 9 10:13:30 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 KAA14098 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 1994 10:13:29 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id NAA16517; Sun, 9 Oct 1994 13:12:58 -0400 Date: 09 Oct 94 13:09:32 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Worker/Trainer Ratios Message-ID: <941009170931_73507.555_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM> A person is trained, that person violates WPS and becomes exposed. What liability is absorbed by the trainer who's signature is on the blue card? An interesting thought for some of you shade tree lawyers. Of greater interest to me, though, is the total unenforceability (sp?) of field worker training. With no required documnetation the employer can't prove that training took place, and I can't really prove that it didn't. Any of my fellow regulatory types have any good ideas on this subject??? From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Mon Oct 10 11:23:27 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 LAA01458 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 11:23:26 -0700 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HI44PQHKOW8WYX7P@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:23:02 EDT Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309) id <01HI44MJ4AXS8ZF5TN@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:20:28 EDT Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:19:07 EDT MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:19:07 -0400 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 12:57:00 -0400 (EDT) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: RE: Worker/Trainer Ratios To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HI44MJXI9I8ZF5TN@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, 10 Oct 1994 14:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;70914101014991/1785477@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Bob: Your question touches on a number of interlinked issues. We as regulators walk a fine line between making agric. employers quite vocal concerning the "unnecessary burden of paperwork", have to justify on (a federal level) to OMB why any piece of data must be collected/recorded, provide estimates of costs, time input, etc. If we require trainers to retain the class roster as proof of training, even this very minimal recordkeeping requirement ("minimal" is a personal opinion) produces complaints. As for specific liability of the trainer in the event of a poisoning incident, which presumably includes an obvious WPS violation (by a worker? Or an applicator?), this is likely a set of questions that could be phrased to EPA's Office of General Council and the Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assistance. Or forwarded to the WPS Interpretive Guidance group for clarification. The OGC representative on the Training Exception was Gaylene Vasaturo (703-235-5313). It seems reasonable (and I am not an attorney) that a trainer, having completed a EPA "train-the-trainer" program and subsequently utilizing EPA-approved materials, should have no liability if one of their trainees is involved in a WPS violation with associated poisoning. Assuming this trainer presented their information clearly, understandably, and communicated the information in a language that was understood, why would or should they have any liability in the incident? Poisonings linked to failure to comply with provisions of the label, i.e. entering fumigated areas prior to ventilation criteria being met without PPE, ignoring REI's, not wearing required PPE during application, etc., are truly not trainer or training "failures". All in all, I think you need to carefully define and refine your scenario, then pose your question to OGC/OECA...and it was a thought-provoking one! Judy Smith From GEYER@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Tue Oct 11 05:53:20 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 FAA25751 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 05:53:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199410111253.FAA25751@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: from VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU by VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0800; Tue, 11 Oct 94 08:52:57 EDT Received: from VTVM1 (NJE origin GEYER@VTVM1) by VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1780; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 08:52:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 08:33:51 EDT From: Leon Subject: RE: Worker/Trainer Ratios To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 10 Oct 1994 11:23:55 -0700 from Just a few comments on liablity of trainer for actions of trainees. As both and educator and lawyer, I have watched with interest the debate over instructor liablity for action of trainees. Forbid that professors would be liable for fallen bridges of their students or the poor economy directed by the ir former phd students. Most liablity is based on two basic concepts-contract s and tort. Warranties are what you give when you enter into a contract. Torts, intentional ( assault and battery, infliction of emotional distreess) and negligience are the main sources of potential liability. Some warranties can be disclaimed ( when you buy the used car and it says as is, that is what you get ) and can be avoided,by not expressing them (In this course, you will know the difference between good and evil ) Such liabilty can be avoided by carefully wording the brouchure by using such words as upon sucessfull comp letion of the course and reading the course material, the student should be able to understand when she should not be able to enter the field after spraying. Notice should and the assumption that the instructor has the correct information in the book and or covers in the class. As to torts, assuming that the instructor does not harrass the student no hits the student, etc, I am not worried about intentional torts. And as to negligience, the standard is did the instructor teach what they said they would. If the course is entitle reenty upon pesticide application and the couse is devoted to how to calabrate a sprayer, I think you have both a negligence and warranty problem. Except, what are the damages.. and what is the standard. I know of no case holding the instructor liable for student failure to learn (as a thought, that may be why american public schools are in trouble with the public) But to the matter at hand, my thoughts are 1. Be careful in what you advertize what you will do. 2. Do what y ou advertise. 3. Do it such that you can prove that you most likely did it. Ie retain the course out line. 4. Do it well. I am unsure if you do testing of the students but I doubt that that alone is an indication of negligence etc. leon From williamr@BCC.ORST.EDU Tue Oct 11 07:47:54 1994 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (root@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA26998 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 07:47:53 -0700 Received: from [128.193.221.156] by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00702; Tue, 11 Oct 94 07:47:48 PDT From: "Ray_D William" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 07:50:36 PST Message-Id: <28237.williamr@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Costs of compliance/Learning biases and interpretations. On Oct. 4, Roger Kaiser asked about various costs associated with WPS. On that day, WPS-Digest 101 offered 15 topics or 18 pages. Assuming that 120 subscribers spent 10 minutes scrolling through the digest, 20 hours of professional time was expended. At $400/hour, $1000 was consumed in a brief 10-minutes. Farmers report similar anxieties about complying with 200 pages of WPS, 300 pages of labor regulations, 200 pages of immigration, etc., etc., etc. Some producers have discovered contradictory statements between regulations from seperate agencies. How much time and resource is being expended? We've asked a couple of regulators, many farmers, and a few workers how they would improve WPS or other regulations. Its interesting how they express their ideas quickly (as if they have thought about improvements) and how the ideas suggest simple, common sense ways to improve safety and regulatory process. Ideas like an interactive action committee with an agency (formerly - advisory committee), improving the law after a year based on what worked/didn't work, developing a "permit" process similar to a building permit, or developing an incentive system involving rewards for improving safety. Although regulators, farmers, and worker representatives recognize that laws and legal liability constrain these ideas, they seem worth pursuing from the perspective of economice, mental, and societal costs or benefits. It turns the whole thought process into an invention and improvement activity with beneficial costs, positive mental creativity, and interactive ownwership. How much is this worth? As these ideas are pursued within groups representing diverse views and values, participants beging to discover different perspectives and personal or individual filters of information. Research on learning, action and behavioral preferences strongly suggests that individual's personal styles influence their hearing, processing, and knowing of information. This raises questions about "performance based standards" proposed by Oregon OSHA along with any other interpretations of the law. Research about people and their personal learning and action styles will influence the type of questions asked and the way responses are interpreted. It raises questions about my own personal learning and action style and how it affects my professional involvement in education. Wow! This raises lots of very interesting questions and suggests oppourtunities for fundamental improvement. One example is the dialogue among WPS-Digest participants. Much of the discussion has focused on interpretation and/or definition. Knowing that people interpret according to their personal learning and action styles makes me wonder how 2 farmers might interpret the same words; how 2 compliance officers will interpret the same action; how 2 Digest participants will interpret the same education? Combine that with interpreting knowledge between languages and cultures raises many questions about performance based standards and perhaps the current regulatory process. As scientists, educators, and informed citizens, how can we employ a rich set of data and research about learning and personal learning/action style preferences to continue a dynamic process toward multiple safety's regarding pesticides, food and fiber systems, and respect for/among diverse people? If you read this, another 3 minutes or $350 was expended by Digest participants. I hope it was worth the $3.00 you expended personally! Ray D. William Horticulture Dept. Oregon St. Univ. ALS 4017 Corvallis, OR 97331 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Oct 11 11:18:35 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 LAA02394 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 11:18:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199410111818.LAA02394@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 11:19:22 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: 5 new files in forum archive Kathy Mannion of Western Growers Association has provided a computer file of the petition submitted to the U.S. EPA on 3/23/94 by seven California agricultural organizations. This petition requests an exception to restricted entry requirements for workers performing irrigation and frost-prevention tasks. Its filename in the archive is "calorgs.pet" (size 19409 bytes). Last week the 9/30/94 letter from Lynn R. Goldman, EPA Assistant Administrator, to Richard W. Kirchhoff, NASDA Executive Vice President, was posted in this forum. That letter, discussing steps to resolve NASDA concerns about WPS provisions and implementation, is now available as a separate file in the archive under the name "metnasda.epa" (size 11393 bytes). Dr. Goldman had sent a shorter letter on 9/22/94 to Rick Perry, Chair of the NASDA Worker Protection Task Force, acknowledging receipt of the (7/8/94) NASDA petition and providing information on other actions anticipated by January 1995 to address concerns about the WPS. That letter is in the archive as "acknasda.epa" (size 5023 bytes). "Checklist For Trainers", a leaflet by Amy E. Brown, Pesticide Education Coordinator, University of Maryland, provides helpful tips on how to conduct effective WPS training for handlers and workers. Its filename is "ab-tips" (size 7041 bytes). Amy has also furnished a computer copy of her "Educational Materials For Worker Protection Standards." This leaflet summarizes required training topics for handlers and workers, and it lists EPA-approved training materials and selected other informational matter available as of 9/8/94. Filename in the archive is "ab-mats" (size 13848 bytes). To obtain a copy of any file in the archive, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM Multiple requests can be stacked in the body of a single message. Howard Rosenberg From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Oct 11 22:32:13 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 WAA17161 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 22:32:13 -0700 Received: from localhost by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.940406sam) id BAA01705; Wed, 12 Oct 1994 01:31:42 -0400 Date: 12 Oct 94 01:27:56 EDT From: BOB ROACH <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Trainer/Instructor Ratios Message-ID: <941012052756_73507.555_HHB23-4@CompuServe.COM> Please excuse my previous posting, this is what I meant to send. California has a large number of field workers to train by January 1. When I try to estimate the number of qualified trainers who have the requisite language skills, and the number of workers in Monterey County, I get a ratio of between 600:1 and 1000:1. Since all must be trained initially, and then refreshed every five years, there is going to be a lack of trainers in the beginning of the program. Do any Agricultural Commissioners or Extensions have plans to train large numbers of workers? Are the costs of providing this training to be recovered from the employer? It seems like we need to have some sort of crash program going if we are to have any hope of compliance. One great unknown in my estimations is the number of qualified applicators (QAC holders) who might train workers. Recently, label changes caused many pesticide applicators to be certified. Many of these people are bilingual. Whether PCOs will use these qualified trainers to train field workers is not known but there is a large group of qualified trainers that could be utilized. I would also like to know what is meant by "a person holding a valid license or certificate of personal pesticide qualification issued by the Department." This language is found in the proposed draft of CCR Section 6764 (from ENF Letter 94-051) defining who is qualified to train field workers. I am assuming that this includes PCAs and everyone else, down to pesticide dealer designated agent. The idea of a registry of trained workers is probably too ambitious. It would be good to have some idea of who provides the training and how many workers they trained. We have a good idea of how many field workers there are, so we could then estimate the percentage that have been actually trained. Robert Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From relane@ucdavis.edu Thu Oct 13 10:48:02 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA19932 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 10:47:51 -0700 From: relane@ucdavis.edu Received: from (null) by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id KAA20030; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 10:47:24 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 10:47:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199410131747.KAA20030@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: STIRRING THE POT WITH SB198 Why is there all the concern about getting California's farm workers trained by January 1 of 1995 and over the documentation of this training? In California these workers should already be trained as mandated by SB198. It is my understanding that SB198 requires all employers to have a comprehensive written Injury/Illness Prevention Program. Among other things, this program requires that employee training must occurr: (1) when first hired; (2) anytime they are assigned to a new job, or introduced to a new hazardous material or procedure; (3) on an annual basis; and; (4) whenever the employer is made aware of a previously unrecognized hazard. This law also requires that training is documented and maintained for three years. SB198 has been in effect for a couple of years now, so California farmers should already be in compliance with the training aspect of the WPS. It also appears that the WPS Training Verification Card will not meet California standards. For one thing SB198 requires safety training in all aspects of an employees job, not just in regards to pesticides. SB198 also requires annual refresher training, not just once every five years as mandated by the WPS. I am surprised that no one has brought this up before. Everyone in California should be familiar with with this law. I'm sure all you California Agricultural Commissioners out there have an Injury/Illness Prevention Plan actively in place in your office. As I'm sure you all know, SB198 does apply to State and County Agencies as well. On a different matter; is there anyone out there that can explain the logic behind replacing a universally recognized symbol like the skull and crossbones with a stern faced man ambiguously waving hi or halt? Ron Lane From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:JRUNYAN@ERS.BITNET> Thu Oct 13 12:07:39 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 MAA26831 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:07:39 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id MAA27517; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:07:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199410131907.MAA27517@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4765; Thu, 13 Oct 94 12:07:09 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 1559; Thu, 13 Oct 94 12:00:54 PDT Received: from ERS (JRUNYAN) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 5227; Thu, 13 Oct 94 15:00:57 EDT Comments: Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 15:00:55 EDT From: Subject: STIRRING THE POT WITH SB198 In-Reply-To: note of 10/13/94 14:42 To: Jack Runyan ARED-FRE/FS Room 224, 219-0932 Ron, according to the Regulation "the use of the skull and crossbones on posting signs would be misleading and weaken the meaning of these signals where materials in toxicity categories III and IV might be involved. During the ill-fated negotiated rule making process EPA conducted prior to issuing WPS, wording andsymbols on the sign were argued strenuously (sp?). This became one of the points that EPA gave to the employers and chemical industryin the final rule. Thank You From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Oct 18 09:57:49 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA19237 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:49 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA17338; Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:44 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199410181657.JAA17338@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: NO WPS CARDS! No WPS Training Cards: On the basis of information from several members of the WPS net I went ahead and scheduled three WPS workshops. The first one is on November 15, 1994, and there are neither cards nor agreements to be seen. I would really really like to have these before the first meeting. Gregorio *********************************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (209) 525-6654 University of California FAX (209) 525-4969 733 County Center 3 e-mail gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Modesto, CA 95357 ************************************************************************ From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Oct 18 09:57:52 1994 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA19243 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:52 -0700 From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id JAA17343; Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199410181657.JAA17343@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Pesticide Game Many of you have already received a copy of Melanie Zavala's "La Loteria de los Pesticidas," a Spanish pesticide safety training game. In the past they were available, free, to government, universities, private consultants, agencies, but not to farmers and farm labor contractors. While farmers still need to purchase their own ($15 ea., through UC Davis Visual Media) the games are now available to FLCs. If you know a FLC please have him or her request a free copy of the game by sending a photocopy of their current state or federal license to: *********************************************************************** 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 ************************************************************************ Thanks, Gregorio From Zax0114@aol.com Fri Oct 21 09:54:10 1994 Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net (mail02.prod.aol.net [192.203.190.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA00640 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 1994 09:54:09 -0700 From: Zax0114@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA21578; Fri, 21 Oct 1994 12:53:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 12:53:33 -0400 Sender: Zax0114@aol.com Message-Id: <9410211253328247085@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Reentry I have a situation coming up that raises the issue of worker reentry after a pesticide application. Next year, a contractor, hired by our county, will be putting in a reclaimed water line between a fenceline and our vineyard (x25 feet from the vineyard itself). If we are applying dusting sulfur or other pesticide during the pipeline installation, are the contractor's workers covered by the reentry intervals? I know they must be notified of the applications but will they be considered to be working in the field and therefore must comply with the REI? Zach Berkowitz Domaine Chandon Yountville, CA From RDSHS@aol.com Fri Oct 21 11:10:42 1994 Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net (mail02.prod.aol.net [192.203.190.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA03103; Fri, 21 Oct 1994 11:10:41 -0700 From: RDSHS@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA14188; Fri, 21 Oct 1994 14:10:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 14:10:10 -0400 Sender: RDSHS@aol.com Message-Id: <9410211410048282472@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: REI Impact Mitigation-Exceptions Subject: REI Impact Mitigation-Exceptions FIFRA and WPS provide mechanisms to modify REl's based on science through the "exception" process. For the past 18 months, our team has been working nationally with commodity groups to identify priority products and crops to modify the impact of the REl's based on data. We are developing hazard evaluation, exposure estimates and economic impact data to allow and encourage EPA to regulate based on improved risk/benefit and economic data. We are helping groups assess the impact of the WPS on their constituent's operations and to get relief from those REl's which are unnecessarily restrictive. Our team is made up of a coalition of three small businesses based in California: - A technical consulting firm specializing in pesticide registration , use, illness and economic data generation and analysis, - An issues management firm specializing in environmental issues affecting agriculture with experience in pesticide education and regulation, and - A government relations firm which represents major agricultural clients in Sacramento, CA and Washington, DC. We have over 60 years of combined experience dealing with EPA and many more years invested in agriculture. We have national connections and experience and are seeking input from affected growers as we consider assisting additional groups. We are working cooperatively with EPA. We believe it is possible to resolve many issues through the "exception" and other data review processes provided for within the WPS and FIFRA as well as the Administrative Procedures Act and courts of law if necessary. If you need more information or know of impacted growers or grower groups, have them contact: Reed Smith RDSHS@AOLCOM (209) 848-0142 (209) 848-0143 FAX From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Mon Oct 24 14:28:36 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 OAA01362 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 14:28:35 -0700 From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id OAA09024; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 14:28:27 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 14:28:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199410242128.OAA09024@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: comments from fresno Cc: cefresno@davis.ucdavis.edu From: Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor, Fresno. (209) 456-7560. . . . Thanks Doug Edwards, Fresno Deputy CAC, for providing me a "specimen" WPS training card. I blew it up as an overhead for 12 WPS talks (ahead of January 1). . . . While visiting Doug, I did a "mock Cal/OSHA inspection." His office does have a written safety program. . . . . UCD's Ron Lane said "everyone in California" should know about SB 198 requiring a written accident prevention program, (including ag commissioners). In reality, after 3 years, some employers haven't complied with formal systems. Employers have had (since OSHA's inception) the "general duty" to furnish employment "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm." Presumably that includes hazardous chemical exposures -- but -- in California, Cal/OSHA has formally agreed (through MOU) to give Cal/EPA jurisdiction on matters related to the pesticide worker safety standards found in Title! 3 CCR, which Cal/EPA (DPR) is hard at work revising, "corroborating" with US EPA (ahead? of January 1?). . . . I've a 1-page bilingual fill-in-the-blank Cal/OSHA "accepted" program. Several Cal/OSHA officers favor it over $400-$600 safety ring-binders sold locally. (Free copies to Forum-ers.). . . . Hello to Monterey's Robert Roach. I too see WPS training help from California's 16,652 qualified applicator license/certificate holders (QALs/QACs) (datum courtesy Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, Salinas). In PAPA seminars (and newsletters) I'll continue encouraging applicators to WPS train for clients and employers. And in Aneheim, I urged 757 of CAPCA's (pest control adviser) members to embrace WPS training (ahead of January 1). . . . Pat Marer - State Fund Compensation Insurance seeks a wps "train-the-trainer" session near Fresno (ahead of January 1). I gave Ken Mimura your number. . . . Gregory - California's WPS training cards are "in the mail." Anti! cipate them sometime after the election (ahead? of January 1?). . . . "Fresno Clear." From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Oct 27 13:40:00 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 NAA21271 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:39:59 -0700 Message-Id: <199410272039.NAA21271@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:40:51 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: reply to question on REI applicability Kay Rudolph (EPA Region 9), away from her office and computer for a while, checked in by phone with a comment on the question posted last week by Zach Berkowitz at Domaine Chandon: > . . a contractor, hired by our county, will be putting in a reclaimed water >line between a fenceline and our vineyard (x25 feet from the vineyard >itself). If we are applying . . . pesticide during the pipeline >installation, are the contractor's workers covered by the reentry intervals? >I know they must be notified of the applications but will they be considered >to be working in the field and therefore must comply with the REI? Kay asked me to relay the succint answer "not under WPS." The federal standard protects only (1) pesticide handlers (who mix, load, or apply pesticides or have other direct contact with pesticides) and (2) agricultural workers (engaged in the production of ag commodities). The 6/28/94 discussion draft of revised California regulations appears also to not require that a farm operator restrict county-contracted pipelayers from entering a treated field. "The employer shall not allow or direct any employee to enter or remain in a treated field before the restricted entry interval . . " [sec. 6770 (a)] While this entry restriction covers _employees_, however, the requirement to notify about a pesticide application or REI takes in _all persons_, regardless of by whom or even whether employed. "The operator of the property shall give notice to all persons known to be on the property or likely to enter . . . during application or a restricted entry interval." [sec. 6618 (b)] 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. I have heard that a new version of the 6/28 discussion draft was completed early this month, and the passages cited here may therefore have been changed. Can anyone from DPR or Ag Commissioners' Offices confirm or correct the interpretation above, comment on the new version of proposed regs, or even provide a copy for the archive? Howard Rosenberg From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Fri Oct 28 13:40:05 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 NAA20358 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 1994 13:40:05 -0700 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id NAB29902; Fri, 28 Oct 1994 13:40:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199410282040.NAB29902@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0286; Fri, 28 Oct 94 13:38:32 PDT Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7101; Fri, 28 Oct 94 13:38:31 PDT Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 1155; Fri, 28 Oct 94 16:39:51 EDT Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 16:33:48 EDT From: Al French Subject: Other person WPS protection To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: Zach and Domaine asked: < Next year, a contractor, hired by our county, will be putting in a > < reclaimed water line between a fenceline and our vineyard (x25 feet from > < the vineyard itself). If we are applying dusting sulfur or other > < pesticide during the pipeline installation, are the contractor's workers > < covered by the reentry intervals? > The restricted entry intervals should not be a problem for workers not employed by you (unless they are crop advisors) and who are not in contact with treated surfaces. However, there are WPS restrictions regarding other persons during pesticide applications: "Sec. 170.210 Restrictions during applications. "(a) Contact with workers and other persons. The handler employer and the handler shall assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any worker OR OTHER PERSON, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler." Emphasis addedY. 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 Gators will leash Bulldogs on 10/29 From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Oct 31 14:50:49 1994 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA17895 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:50:48 -0800 Received: from ppp1.igc.org (ppp1.igc.org [198.94.6.1]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.51 ) with SMTP id OAA14829 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:50:52 -0800 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:50:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199410312250.OAA14829@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: Consultants and WPS X-Mailer: Howdy all, I'm new to the group here, so I might as well jump in with both feet. I'm interested to know how many out there may be crop consultants or some such that are trying to help growers deal with the WPS. We've put out an exploratory effort to provide posting of re-entry sheets (with the side benefit of chemical input tracking and costing) as a service. I'd be interested to know if anyone else was attempting the same thing. I'll be glad to summarize the results, and would like to hear some success/failure stories. Also, on another note, how far does WPS extend into the research effort of things? With all of the hoopla about exempting 'consultants=scouts', but not research specifically, where exatly to 'consultants' who do 'contract research' fall. As I read it now, we have to comply for all research activities, with the exception of unregistered pesticides. I do know there has been a lot of talk about this by the boys/girls in the big white house, but I haven't discovered any detail of potential changes. C 'ya Woody