From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Apr 3 07:10:12 1995 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA22101 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 07:10:10 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id KAA25216; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 10:09:39 -0400 Date: 03 Apr 95 10:07:24 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: California Only Message-ID: <950403140724_73507.555_HHB32-1@CompuServe.COM> On March 16, 1995 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation issued enforcement letter 95-17. This consists of a February 15 letter to Kathy Taylor, U.S. EPA, requesting regulatory equivalency and a draft of California regulation changes dated February 6. I just want people to be aware of this in case they are interested in what they may have to deal with in the future. Also, comments at this point, before regulation changes are formally proposed, are desirable. I think the proposed regs are pretty good. I am concerned about CCR 6618, Notice of Applications. The California "likely to enter" has been given up in favor of the federal "may walk within 1/4 mile." The proposed section is more restrictive than 40 CFR 170.120 in that it specifically prohibits the use of field posting signs to comply with the notice requirements. The previous draft had allowed this, as does the federal standard. How do you feel about that, Californios? ********************************************************** "Men hate the truth. They would rather meet a tiger in the road." - Robinson Jeffers Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ********************************************************** From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Tue Apr 4 12:33:04 1995 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (prime.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA25614 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:32:59 -0700 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199504041932.MAA25614@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 04 Apr 95 12:34:10 PDT To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 04 Apr 95 12:34:10 PDT TO: People interested in the University of California programs for trainers of fieldworkers and pesticide handlers FROM: Patrick Marer Pesticide Training Coordinator Here is our latest schedule of train-the-trainer programs for trainers of fieldworkers and pesticide handlers. Participants in these programs will receive certificates which will enable them to apply for and issue worker verification cards. Please distribute this information to anyone interested in attending one of these programs. Please note that farm advisors Gregory Billikopf, Jesus Valencia, and Steve Sutter are now working with the UC IPM Project's Pesticide Education Program to provide instructor training programs and will follow the same format and use the same materials as the programs conducted by me and my staff. This will provide many additional programs in the San Joaquin Valley for trainers of fieldworkers. University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project Train-The-Trainer Workshops CLOSED April 6 - Stockton 7:30am-4pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (Spanish)(contact Gregory Billikopf at (209)525-6654 to register) April 7 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) April 18 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) CLOSED April 26 - Bakersfield 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) May 1 - Visalia 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 4 - Visalia 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 5 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 23 - Ventura 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) May 23 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) May 25 - San Luis Obispo 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) May 25 - San Luis Obispo 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) May 26 - San Luis Obispo 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (Eng) Space limited at each location. Early registration is strongly recommended. To register by phone using credit card call (916)752-7691 From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Tue Apr 4 12:56:48 1995 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (prime.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA26355 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:56:32 -0700 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199504041956.MAA26355@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 04 Apr 95 12:57:38 PDT To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 04 Apr 95 12:57:38 PDT TO: Everyone attending the national PAT workshop in San Diego FROM: Patrick J. Marer Here is a copy of the final agenda for the national pesticide applicator training and certification workshop being held next week in San Diego. We are still accepting phone/fax registrations and you can also register at the door. We've also opened more space on the agricultural tour in case you are interested. If you want to go on this tour, call Gale Perez at (916)752-2733 before April 7. See you in San Diego!!! NATIONAL PESTICIDE APPLICATOR TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION WORKSHOP San Diego, California April 10 - 13, 1995 Program Monday, April 10: Pre-Workshop Events: 10:00 am Agricultural Tour of San Diego County ($30 additional fee - spouses and guests welcome) - Tour limited to first 50 people signing up - REGISTER EARLY! - Tour Director: Dr. Karen Robb, UC Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor, San Diego County Bus leaves Catamaran Hotel Visit commercial flower production facility (Millano Nursery) - Coastal San Diego County Travel inland to Fallbrook Lunch - Grand Tradition (lunch included in fee) Tour Avocado Groves Travel to Temecula Tour Calloway's vineyard and winery 4:30 pm Return to Catamaran Hotel 5:00 7:00 pm Registration and Mixer 6:00 10:00 pm American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) Meeting (April 4, 1995 rev.) Tuesday, April 11: 7:00 8:00 Continental Breakfast; Visit Displays 8:00 8:30 Welcome, Introduction, and Purpose of Conference - Patrick Marer, Pesticide Training Coordinator, University of California, Davis, CA and Chuck Andrews, Chief, Pesticide Enforcement Branch, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA 8:30 10:00 Current and Future Issues in Certification and Training: Where We Are and Where We Are Going From USEPA and USDA Perspectives - Jake Mackenzie, Western Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA and John Impson, National Program Leader for Pesticide Applicator Training, USDA, Washington, DC 10:00 10:30 Break and Visit Displays Session Moderator: Howard Deer, Pesticide Applicator Training Coordinator, Utah State University, Logan, UT 10:30-11:30 The Importance of Accurate Pesticide Exposure Assessment in Evaluating Risk - Robert Krieger, Extension Toxicologist, University of California, Riverside, CA 11:30-12:00 The Future of Pesticide Applicator Training: A Proposal - Barry Brennan, Pesticide Coordinator and Pesticide Applicator Training Coordinator, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 12:00 1:00 Lunch On Your Own Session Moderator: Paul Baker, Pesticide Applicator Training Coordinator, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 1:00 2:00 Certification and Training Programs and Issues in Canada, Mexico, and the US Indian Tribal Nations - J. H. Bud Paulson, Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission, Scottsdale, AZ; Conner Byestewa, Jr., Colorado River Indian Tribes, Parker, AZ; and Wanda Michalowicz, Standards Development Branch, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2:00 3:30 Breakout Sessions - Select One (see last page for schedule) 3:30 3:45 Break and Visit Displays 3:45 5:15 Breakout Sessions Select One (see last page for schedule) Wednesday, April 12: 7:00 8:00 Continental Breakfast; Visit Displays Session Moderator: Mary O'Donnell, Certification and Training Coordinator, Region 9, US Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA 8:00 9:00 The Government Performance Review Act: What It Means to Certification and Training - Mitch Geasler, USDA ES, Washington, DC 9:00 10:00 Evaluation Concepts: What Are We Trying to Measure; How Do We Do It - Pete Nowak, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 10:00 10:30 Break and Visit Displays Session Moderator: Paul F. Gosselin, Assistant Director, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA 10:30 11:15 IPM Principles and How IPM Fits With Sustainable Agriculture - Gregory C. Watson, Sustainable Agriculture Consultant, Falmouth, MA 11:15 12:00 The Role of IPM Education in Pesticide Applicator Training - Benny Mathis, Executive Director, Texas Structural Pest Control Board, Austin, TX 12:00 1:00 Lunch On Your Own 1:00 2:30 Breakout Sessions - Select One (see last page for schedule) 2:30 3:00 Break and Visit Displays 3:00 4:30 Breakout Sessions Select One (see last page for schedule) 6:00 10:00 Business Meetings for AAPSE and Other Groups Thursday, April 13: 7:00 8:00 Continental Breakfast; Visit Displays Session Moderator: Jeffrey Jenkins, Associate Professor of Agricultural Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 8:00 10:00 The Dazzling Impact of Computer Technology on Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training: EXTOXNET - Terry Miller, Pesticide Coordinator, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR The GOPHER Network and PAT - Dean Herzfeld, Pesticide Coordinator, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN Computers, Not Slide Trays - Robert Wolf, Extension Specialist in Agricultural Engineering and Pesticide Applicator Training, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL Entering Virtual Space for the Real Deal on WPS - Howard Rosenberg, Agricultural Personnel Management Specialist, University of California, Berkeley, CA 10:00 10:15 Break and Visit Displays 10:15 1:00 Drop-In Sessions for Hands-On Experience With Computer Technology: Choose a few or all of the following sessions and drop in for a closer look. The topic leaders will have their equipment on line to give you a chance for hands-on experience with these computer technologies. The experts will answer your questions and provide you with the information you need to use these new resources in your work. EXTOXNET - Terry Miller and Jeffrey Jenkins, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR List Servers and News Groups - Howard Rosenberg, University of California, Berkeley, CA Hands-On PAT GOPHER Exploration - Dean Herzfeld, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Kathleen Ruth Fitzgerald, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Michael J. Weaver, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA; and Patricia Hipkins, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA Computer-Generated Slides and Projection Systems - Robert Wolf, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL The National PAT Core Manual on the World Wide Web of Internet - Larry Schulze, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 1:00 Official Close of Meeting Tuesday and Wednesday Breakout Session Topics: The same breakout sessions will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons. Participants can select two sessions to attend each day. 1. Measuring Adoption of Safety Practices Among Pesticide Applicators - Susan Whitney, PAT Coordinator, University of Delaware, Newark, DE and Pete Nowak, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (Tuesday 2:00-3:30; Wednesday 3:00-4:30) How do we know that our training efforts pay off? Are certification programs really effective in getting pesticide handlers to adopt safer practices? Susan Whitney and Pete Nowak team up to share the results of their studies, research, and experiences in evaluating pesticide safety programs. You will get take-home information and ideas you can put to work in your own programs. 2. Making Your Point Through the Media - Steve Powell, Manager, Office of Environmental and Public Affairs, Ciba Crop Protection Company, Greensboro, NC (Tuesday 2:00-3:30; Wednesday 3:00-4:30) Are you prepared to handle those difficult questions from the press or a local television station? How can you provide accurate information and avoid being misquoted or appearing to be uninformed and irresponsible? This session, conducted by a media expert, shows you how to prepare yourself for the interview, how to respond to those probing questions, and how to keep interviewers from misquoting you or taking your statements out of context. 3. Effective Methods for Training Pesticide Handlers and Agricultural Fieldworkers - Melanie Zavala, Farmworker Pesticide Safety Training Coordinator, University of California, Davis, CA and Charlie Nagamine, Instructor/Coordinator, Pesticide Applicator Training Program, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI (Tuesday 2:00-3:30; Wednesday 3:00-4:30) There's a big difference between training and EFFECTIVE training. These two expert pesticide educators demonstrate training methods that capture the attention of pesticide handlers and agricultural fieldworkers and drive home the vital safety information they need to know. Learn how to structure programs that bridge language, cultural, and educational barriers. See how to make training sessions interesting and fun. 4. How To Incorporate IPM Principles Into Pesticide Applicator Training and Certification Programs - Mary Louise Flint, Director, IPM Education and Publications, UC Statewide IPM Project, Davis, CA and William Coli, IPM Program Coordinator, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (Tuesday 2:00-3:30; Wednesday 3:00-4:30) What do IPM and pesticide applicator training and certification have in common? Do they really belong together? Learn how these two professionals teach pesticide handlers about Integrated Pest Management and how IPM principles can be incorporated into pesticide applicator training and state certification programs. Find out why pesticide safety should be an important component of IPM. 5. Using Performance Objectives in Curriculum Development and Test Construction - Andy Seibert, Agronomy Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (Tuesday 3:45-5:15; Wednesday 1:00-2:30) Performance objectives are precise statements which describe standards of learner performance. They work particularly well as a foundation for training and certification programs. This session will emphasize hands-on experience and will focus on developing goals and performance objectives and constructing quality exam questions which are congruent with the performance objectives. You will learn to distinguish between goals and performance objectives and will practice writing good exam questions. 6. The Vision and Value of Distance Education - Larry Dooley, Texas A&M University, College Park, TX and Kim Dooley, Texas A&M University, College Park, TX (Tuesday 3:45-5:15; Wednesday 1:00-2:30) As we prepare to enter a new century we are surrounded by new tools and technologies. What roles do distance learning, interactive media, and other new communication methods play now and in the future in the pesticide applicator certification and training process? Learn from leading communications experts how to use these resources (and find out where they exist). Get ideas on how to adapt these technologies to your own program goals. 7. Working Toward Nationwide Consistency in Lawn Care Certification and Recertification Programs - Thomas J. Delaney, Director of Government Affairs, Professional Lawn Care Association of America, Marietta, GA; Joanne Kick- Raack, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Brian Swingle, Program Manager, Pesticide Certification and Licensing, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Madison, WI (Tuesday 3:45-5:15; Wednesday 1:00-2:30) The lawn care industry is an important niche in each state's pesticide applicator certification and training programs. However, do the needs and special problems of pesticide handlers in this significant industry get properly addressed through individual state certification and training programs? Is it possible to achieve nationwide consistency in certification and training programs and raise the standards of this industry? These three experts have extensive backgrounds in the lawn care industry and will explore the issues and their ideas with you. 8. Pesticide Drift Awareness - Art Losey, Olympia, WA (consultant to Western Agricultural Chemicals Association) (Tuesday 3:45-5:15; Wednesday 1:00-2:30) Learn from this expert the latest information about reducing spray drift. Art Losey is a former pesticide regulator and now is a consultant and advocate of spray drift management. He will be showing you new tools and ideas that help keep pesticides on target and out of the places they don't belong. (April 4, 1995 rev.) From hbeoh003@huey.csun.edu Tue Apr 4 15:01:26 1995 Received: from huey.csun.edu (huey.csun.edu [130.166.1.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA01451 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:01:23 -0700 Received: from localhost (hbeoh003@localhost) by huey.csun.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) id OAA13326; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:57:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:45:43 +0800 (PST) From: ofra tessler Subject: Enforcement of WPS To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <0098E2ED.747E9900.27878@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello! My name is Ofra, I am a graduate student at California State University Northridge and I am doing a project on Field worker exposure to pesticides. I am required to include a section about enforcement and that is where I am currantly stuck. Can anyone fill me in on what is done to enforce EPA-WPS and especially California Worker Protection Reglations,point me to the correct file, or perhaps the right person to ask. I also would very much like to hear the opinions of people on this forum about what the future may hold as far as these WPS. What direction do you think we are going in, given the new congress and stress on Risk - Benefit analysis of all regulations, etc. Thank You Very Much! Ofra hbeoh003@huey.csun.edu From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Wed Apr 5 09:50:44 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA14852 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:50:42 -0700 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA16483 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:30:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:30:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199504051630.JAA16483@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (Gregorio Billikopf-Encina) Subject: Re: X-Mailer: Pat, Please add and re-send your post with our June 1 workshop for Modesto, Spanish, wide OPEN right now. $20, Billikopf & Valencia. Best wishes, Gregorio >TO: People interested in the University of California programs for trainers of > fieldworkers and pesticide handlers > >FROM: Patrick Marer > Pesticide Training Coordinator ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From 73507.555@compuserve.com Wed Apr 5 22:43:34 1995 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA29725 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 22:43:32 -0700 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id BAA11852; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 01:43:00 -0400 Date: 06 Apr 95 01:40:23 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Reply to Ofra Message-ID: <950406054023_73507.555_HHB33-1@CompuServe.COM> Ofra, In California the Department of Pesticide Regulation is the lead agency for enforcement. At the local level enforcement programs are carried out by the county agricultural commissioners. I suggest you contact your local agricultural commissioner and speak to the deputy in charge of the pesticide use enforcement program. From that office you can also obtain "enforcement letters" containing current policy regarding enforcement of the WPS in California. California is enforcing the new labels and current regulations at this time. In addition, we are moving forward with training of fieldworkers. Meanwhile, DPR is working of revising California regulations to be consistent with the WPS. ENF 95-17 contains the latest draft of the regulations to be proposed when the U.S EPA decides on California's request for regulatory equivalency and the five proposed changes or exceptions to the WPS. There was a good thread on enforcement in the various states a while back but I can't recall exactly when. The gist of it was that the enforcement program in California is strong and has been for the last 20 years. It far surpasses programs in other states in terms of effectiveness and resources devoted. As to what the future holds, I can't say. The winds of change are blowing and the new congress seems to be in control and moving right along with the contract on, for or with America. I am not sure how the unfunded mandates bill might affect WPS. I think it is not retroactive. The risk/benefit analysis of the WPS may be subject to criticism. I have heard that it was buried at OMB because of serious flaws. When George Bush wanted to be the "Environmental President" he dusted it off and it was published in the Federal Register three days after he returned from Rio. I would like to check that. I think I see a shadow on the grassy knoll. ; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 07:34:08 -0700 Received: from [128.120.36.230] by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4) id HAA03456; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 07:33:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199504061433.HAA03456@franc.ucdavis.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 07:38:18 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: slweber@ucdavis.edu (Stephanie Weber Smith) Subject: Enforcement piece Does anyone know the publication to which Bob Roach referred in his response to Ofra? I'm interested in reading more about CA's enforcement program. Thanks. Stephanie Weber Smith UC Ag. Issues Center 132 Soc. Sci. & Human. Bldg. Davis, CA 95616 Ph.: (916) 752-1604 Fax: (916) 752-5451 e-mail: slweber@ucdavis.edu From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Apr 6 11:13:21 1995 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA09330 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 11:13:19 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 06 Apr 1995 11:12:14 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 06 Apr 1995 11:11:52 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, slweber@ucdavis.edu Subject: Enforcement piece -Reply Response to S, Weber and anyone else interested in more information on the California Oestucude Regulatory Program. There is a 1991 report to the legislature on California's Pesticide Regulatory Program that is quite comprehensive. It is a little out of date now that the Deppartment has been separated from the Department of Food and Agriculture but it is in the process of being revised. I am not sure on the anticipated issue date of the revision. This book will likely tell tou more than you ever really wanted to know about the program. You might want to call the DPR information office at 916/445-3974 and see if there are any copies left and when the new version will be issued. RoyR From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Apr 6 21:54:32 1995 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA22421 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 21:54:30 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id AAA12499; Fri, 7 Apr 1995 00:53:59 -0400 Date: 07 Apr 95 00:52:33 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Minor Crops Workshop Message-ID: <950407045232_73507.555_HHB66-2@CompuServe.COM> Minor Use Registrations Focus of Salinas Workshop on April 18 So-called "minor pesticide uses" which aren't so "minor" to California will be the focus of a Salinas Workshop April 18, 1995. For pesticide registrants, "major" crops are those with extensive acreages nationwide, for example wheat, soybeans and corn. "Minor" crops, with substantially less acreage, are a smaller pesticide market. They include most fruit, nut and vegetable crops. In other words, most of the crops important to California's $20 billion agricultural economy. Minor crop uses of pesticides have been especially vulnerable during the past decade as new fees and data requirements have been imposed both at the state and federal level. Farmers have lost hundreds of useful pesticide products because their manufacturers decided that their sales weren't worth the millions to develop new data. The importance of minor crops is reflected in the diversity of sponsors supporting the workshop, to be held at the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner's Office. Among the grower organizations, government agencies and industry groups sponsoring the workshop are the California Department of Food and Agriculture, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, USDA IR-4 Program, Western Crop Protection Association, Western Growers Association, California League of Food Processors, California Farm Bureau Federation and Campbell Soup Company. Featured speakers at the workshop will be officials from the U.S EPA and USDA IR-4, who will use the sessions as an opportunity to gather information relating to minor crop policy. The workshop is scheduled for April 18 at the Monterey County Agricultural Center, 1428 Abbott Street in Salinas, California. Registration opens at 8:00 A.M. Sessions will begin at 8:30 A.M. and go until 2:00 P.M. The cost of attending for those who pre-register is $10.00 per person, including lunch, and $15.00 at the door. Advance registration is encouraged. Space is limited. For more information, call the Western Crop Protection Association at (916) 568-3662. Agenda: The Grower's Dilemma Grower Needs and Issues Service Provider Issues IR-4/Grower Coordination Section 18/24(c) Registrations How it is done How it may be improved IR-4 and Tolerance Data Needs U.S. EPA Perspective on the Minor Use Issue California Registration Harmonization Impacts U.S. Minor Crops Legislative Review ### From HJP@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Fri Apr 7 13:13:19 1995 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA07754 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:13:08 -0700 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HP2AMCIGWW8ZO2AQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Fri, 07 Apr 1995 16:13:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 16:13:43 -0500 (EST) From: "PIROZZOLI, HEATHER J" Subject: EPA Materials in Electronic Format To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HP2AMCIQK28ZO2AQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I am interested in getting the EPA Pesticide Safety and Training Materials Catalog (Spanish and English) and Protect Yourself From Pesticides (EPA 735- B-93-002) in electronic format. Are they in the archive? If someone has access to them, can they be posted? We are interested in including them on the National Ag Safety Disc, a CDROM which is a national repository for agricultural safety, health and injury prevention information. Thanks. Heather Pirozzoli National Ag Safety Disc Database Specialist University of Florida Box 110495 -- Building 162 Gainesville, Florida 32611-0495 (904) 846-1348 hjp@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Apr 10 08:03:05 1995 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA23674 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 08:03:03 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id LAA04889; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:02:32 -0400 Date: 10 Apr 95 10:58:04 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Couple of Questions Message-ID: <950410145803_73507.555_HHB84-1@CompuServe.COM> 1) Of the pesticides that require both oral and written warning, some are applied by soil injection, or else soil applied and incorporated. In this case, no contact by workers could occur. Are the notices still required if there is no possibility of contact? I cannot see any exception. 2) In the recent proposed change to how the WPS treats crop advisors, one of the sections they would be exempted from is 170.240. This section contains an exception that allows them to wear early reentry PPE instead of handler PPE. If they are exempted from this exception, will they have to wear handler PPE? I do not think that was the intention. Was this received in any comments? I have been troubled by things like this before only to find out that it was handled already in some ingenious way by the WPS. ********************************************************** "Men hate the truth. They would rather meet a tiger in the road." - Robinson Jeffers Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ********************************************************** From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Mon Apr 10 10:21:18 1995 Received: from ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us [164.107.107.13]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA27429 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:21:14 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id NAA13906; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 13:19:39 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id NAA13083; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 13:19:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 12:48:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Couple of Questions To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum In-Reply-To: <950410145803_73507.555_HHB84-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On 10 Apr 1995, Bob Roach wrote:> > > 1) Of the pesticides that require both oral and written > warning, some are applied by soil injection, or else soil > applied and incorporated. In this case, no contact by > workers could occur. Are the notices still required if > there is no possibility of contact? I cannot see any > exception. Reply from S. McDonald: The only exceptions to "double notification" (or any notification requirement) are: 1) no workers on the establishment will be in the treated area or walk within 1/4 mile of the treated area during application or the REI, OR 2) no workers will be in the greenhouse during the application or REI, OR 3) the only workers for whom a sign must be posted at the treated area applied (or supervised the application of) the pesticide and are aware of the information required to be given in the oral warning. There is no exception for soil-injected or soil-incorporated applications. However, this was deliberate. EPA wrote in its Response to Comment document that: "These applications [soil-incorporated or -injected] may not present foliar exposure hazards for workers entering the area after the application, but the Agency is concerned about workers who are weeding, suckering, thinning, and cultivating, where there is a possibility for worker contact with treated soils. It is concerned also about spills at turn-rows which may leave granules on the soil surface and about inhalation hazards from volatile soil-incorporated chemicals." On April 10, 1995, Bob Roach wrote: 2) In the recent proposed change to how the WPS treats crop advisors, one of the sections they would be exempted from is 170.240. This section contains an exception that allows them to wear early reentry PPE instead of handler PPE. If they are exempted from this exception, will they have to wear handler PPE? I do not think that was the intention. Was this received in any comments? Reply from S. McDonald: My interpretation of EPA's proposed exemption to the WPS for crop advisors is that provided a person is licensed or certified as a crop advisor in a program approved by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency and that licensing/certification includes training equivalent to WPS handler training, such crop advisors need not provided to themselves or to their employees WPS protections, including ANY PPE. In other words, such crop advisors need not follow labeling instructions for either handler or early-entry PPE requirements or for other WPS-related requirements, such as restricted-entry intervals. In addition, my interpretation of the EPA's proposed exemption to the WPS for crop advisors is that until January 1, 1996, ALL crop advisors (regardless of whether they are certified or licensed) need not provide themselves or their employees with any WPS or pesticide-labeling protections. No PPE need be worn or provided and REI's and other user-safety labeling could be ignored. As proposed, the grower would be required to inform the crop advisor about areas on the establishment where applications would be taking place or restricted-entry intervals would be in effect while the crop advisor is on the establishment. However, it is the grower's responsibility to inform the crop advisor. The crop advisor has no responsibility to get that information before going onto the establishment and has no responsibility to pay any attention to the information if it is received. As proposed, there appears to be no exceptions to this exclusion for crop advisors and their employees, even if fumigants or highly toxic pesticides, such as ethyl parathion, have been applied. It is up to the crop advisor's judgement where to wear or require employees to wear any PPE or to take any other safety precautions. Sally A. McDonald Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle Dublin, OH 43017 From agcom15@chiba.netxn.com Mon Apr 10 10:40:18 1995 Received: from chiba.netxn.com (chiba.netxn.com [199.172.49.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA28002 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:40:15 -0700 Received: (agcom15@localhost) by chiba.netxn.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) id KAA03279; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:50:20 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:50:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Kern County Agricultural Comissioner To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Guidance on Issuance of Worker Protection Standard Enforceme (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Something for all you WPS forumites..... Jim... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:35:16 -0400 From: S001627@swais.access.gpo.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Guidance on Issuance of Worker Protection Standard Enforceme [Federal Register: April 10, 1995] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-00406; FRL-4948-3] Guidance on Issuance of Worker Protection Standard Enforcement Actions in Response to Personal Protective Equipment Violations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On February 13, 1995, the Agency distributed its ``Summary Guidance on Issuance of WPS Enforcement Actions'' which applied to any violations of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). EPA was recently asked to distribute further guidance specific to enforcement of the personal protective equipment (PPE) provisions of the WPS. In response, the Agency developed guidance which applies to PPE violations the 10 factors which EPA recommends be considered in determining the appropriate recipients of WPS enforcement actions. This guidance was distributed to EPA Regional Offices on March 30, 1995, for transmittal to state pesticide enforcement personnel, the intended audience for the guidance. EPA is publishing the March 30th guidance at the request of a state organization. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia L. Sims, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 2245A, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202) 564-4048. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background EPA is providing this document in response to requests made for specific guidance concerning enforcement of the PPE provisions of the FIFRA WPS. This summary guidance is organized according to the 10 factors to be considered in determining the appropriate recipients of WPS enforcement actions, and employers/owners/operators' PPE responsibilities. II. Ten Factors for Consideration EPA recommends that accountability for compliance with the FIFRA WPS be decided on a common sense, case-by-case basis. ``Summary Guidance on Issuance of WPS Enforcement Actions,'' provided February 1995, identifies the following 10 factors which EPA recommends States consider when they need to determine the appropriate recipient(s) of a WPS enforcement action: 1. Who has control over pesticide use; 2. Who directs pesticide use; 3. Who has control over the agricultural establishment for posting and other WPS-related responsibilities; 4. Who gives direction on the agricultural establishment for posting and other WPS-related responsibilities; 5. Who has control over the practices used by agricultural workers on the establishment; 6. Who directs the practices used by agricultural workers on the establishment; 7. Measures taken to comply with provisions of the WPS; 8. Actions taken in response to incidents of noncompliance; 9. History of prior violations; and 10. Ability to assure continuing compliance with the WPS. Documentation by employers/owners/operators could assist them in demonstrating to State regulatory officials, their efforts to comply and responses to instances of noncompliance. The totality of the circumstances should be considered in each case. The 10 factors are not listed in any order of priority; each factor should be appropriately considered in every case. III. Employers/Owners/Operators PPE Responsibilities The 10 factors should be considered if an employee (including workers and handlers) does not use PPE required by the WPS. It is essential for employers/owners/operators to take an active role to assure that PPE is used. The employer/owner/operator bears primary responsibility for WPS PPE compliance. Employers/owners/operators must provide, clean and maintain PPE, and instruct employees on its proper use. The employer/ owner/operator has a responsibility to inform employees who do not use their PPE that such clothing or protective gear is required. In the case of pesticide handlers, the responsibility to follow label directions and use PPE properly is a shared one with the employer. The employer/owner/operator also has a responsibility to take appropriate actions if an agricultural employee does not comply with instructions to use PPE. If an employee does not use WPS required PPE, appropriate supervisory actions that could be taken by the employer/ owner/operator to achieve compliance include warnings and [[Page 18101]] nondiscriminatory discipline. If an employer/owner/ operator provides employees with appropriate PPE, training and supervision per the specifications of the WPS, there should not arise an occasion on which the employer/owner/operator would be subject to a WPS/PPE enforcement action due to the individual decision of an agricultural employee not to use the PPE. Enforcement officials will consider the facts of a case before determining how to respond to any WPS violation, consistent with the 10 factors identified in the Agency's February 1995 summary WPS enforcement guidance. EPA recommends that accountability for compliance be decided on a common sense basis, and that the totality of the circumstances be considered in each case, including enforcement actions in response to PPE violations. Dated: April 4, 1995. Jesse Baskerville, Director, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. [FR Doc. 95-8726 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From RAENOMOTO@aol.com Mon Apr 10 11:29:13 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA29576 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:29:11 -0700 From: RAENOMOTO@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA263158520; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 14:28:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 14:28:40 -0400 Message-Id: <950410142839_78238964@aol.com> To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: biological control Does anyone have the address of a "forum" or bulletin board for beneficial biological control of pests? Perhaps this will be the BEST way to ensure worker safety. Thanks From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Mon Apr 10 11:52:17 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA00613 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:52:12 -0700 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA16280; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:52:05 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:52:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199504101852.LAA16280@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (Gregorio Billikopf-Encina) Subject: Video Update Cc: ag-hrnet@ucdavis.edu, hrnet@cornell.edu X-Mailer: Viewer preference for training video affected by video showing order. Which safety video do trainers prefer? When trainers-to-be were showed two Worker Protection Standard (WPS) videos on pesticide safety, in this case Chasing the Sun and the Idaho video, they not only tended to select the second video shown that day, but they also defended their choice with much enthusiasm. The order of the videos were reversed so that sometimes Chasing the Sun was shown second and sometimes the Idaho tape was shown second. Once again, whichever video we showed second was selected by the trainers-to-be. My only hypothesis at the moment (and your hypothesis is welcome) is that trainers enjoyed the second video better because they understood much more about the topic being discussed by the time they got to the second video. These videos were not shown back to back. The first video was shown early on in the training session and the second after about two hours of detailed training on pesticide safety. Regards, Gregorio ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From cesanjoaquin@ucdavis.edu Mon Apr 10 12:42:41 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA02785 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 12:42:39 -0700 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA22912 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 12:42:35 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 12:42:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199504101942.MAA22912@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szsjoaqn@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: cesanjoaquin@ucdavis.edu (CE San Joaquin) Subject: Re: biological control X-Mailer: >Does anyone have the address of a "forum" or bulletin board for beneficial >biological control of pests? Perhaps this will be the BEST way to ensure >worker safety. > >Thanks > >The University of California has a free leaflet on Bio.Control Sources, listing the suppliers and organisms. Leaflet # 7115. Send me your mail address and I'll send you a copy. Gary W. Hickman From dharper@biddeford.com Mon Apr 10 17:26:53 1995 Received: from river.biddeford.com (river.biddeford.com [204.120.68.6]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA11509 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 17:26:50 -0700 Received: from [199.244.145.43] ([199.244.145.43]) by river.biddeford.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id UAA04368 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:17:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:17:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199504110017.UAA04368@river.biddeford.com> X-Sender: dharper@river.biddeford.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: dharper@biddeford.com (Don Harper) Subject: Re: biological control >>Does anyone have the address of a "forum" or bulletin board for beneficial >>biological control of pests? Perhaps this will be the BEST way to ensure >>worker safety. >> >>Thanks >> >>The University of California has a free leaflet on Bio.Control Sources, >listing the suppliers and organisms. Leaflet # 7115. Send me your mail >address and I'll send you a copy. Gary W. Hickman Gary; Please send a copy to me at Whistling Wings Farm,Inc. 427 West St.,Biddeford,Me. 04005. Thanks;Don Harper From dharper@biddeford.com Mon Apr 10 19:19:42 1995 Received: from river.biddeford.com (river.biddeford.com [204.120.68.6]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA13318 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:19:40 -0700 Received: from [199.244.145.43] ([199.244.145.43]) by river.biddeford.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id WAA07523 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:19:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:19:18 -0400 Message-Id: <199504110219.WAA07523@river.biddeford.com> X-Sender: dharper@river.biddeford.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: dharper@biddeford.com (Don Harper) Subject: Re: biological control >>>Does anyone have the address of a "forum" or bulletin board for beneficial >>>biological control of pests? Perhaps this will be the BEST way to ensure >>>worker safety. >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>The University of California has a free leaflet on Bio.Control Sources, >>listing the suppliers and organisms. Leaflet # 7115. Send me your mail >>address and I'll send you a copy. Gary W. Hickman >Gary; Please send a copy to me at Whistling Wings Farm,Inc. 427 West >St.,Biddeford,Me. 04005. >Thanks;Don Harper From kuramoto@mala.bc.ca Mon Apr 10 19:20:39 1995 Received: from malad2.mala.bc.ca (malad2.mala.BC.CA [134.87.26.7]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA13324 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:19:45 -0700 From: kuramoto@mala.bc.ca Received: by mala.bc.ca (MX V4.1 AXP) id 82; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:17:48 PST Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:20:03 PST To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098EB00.8B9D7820.82@mala.bc.ca> Subject: Re: biological control There are two that I know. One is at North Carolina State University, National Integrated Pest Management Net nsoy@unity.ncsu.edu Also, B.C. Ministry of Environment http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ Dr. Linda A. Gilkeson lgilkeson@epdiv1.env.gov.bc.ca IPM Coordinator Hope this helps. Connie Kuramoto kuramoto@mala.bc.ca From kuramoto@mala.bc.ca Mon Apr 10 19:25:20 1995 Received: from malad2.mala.bc.ca (malad2.mala.BC.CA [134.87.26.7]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA13612 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:25:16 -0700 From: kuramoto@mala.bc.ca Received: by mala.bc.ca (MX V4.1 AXP) id 42; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:23:20 PST Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:25:36 PST To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098EB01.51DC33A0.42@mala.bc.ca> Subject: Re: biological control I would also like a copy of this bulletin, Connie Kuramoto, Malaspina University College, 900 Fifth Street, Nanaimo, B.C. Canada V9R 3G2 From Mac82nd@aol.com Tue Apr 11 06:01:48 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA19658 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 06:01:47 -0700 From: Mac82nd@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA250535275; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 09:01:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 09:01:15 -0400 Message-Id: <950411090112_79209690@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: biological control >>Does anyone have the address of a "forum" or bulletin board for beneficial >>biological control of pests? Perhaps this will be the BEST way to ensure >>worker safety. >> >>Thanks >> >>The University of California has a free leaflet on Bio.Control Sources, >listing the suppliers and organisms. Leaflet # 7115. Send me your mail >address and I'll send you a copy. Gary W. Hickman Gary; Please send a copy to me at Great Lakes Fruit Growers News, PO Box 128, Sparta, MI 49345 From woodard@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 11 07:09:20 1995 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA20361 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:09:19 -0700 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.195 ) with SMTP id HAA14848 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:08:40 -0700 Received: from ppp4.igc.org (woodard@ppp4.igc.org [198.94.6.4]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.6 ) with SMTP id HAA08909 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:08:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:08:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199504111408.HAA08909@igc3.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: biological control Sender: woodard@igc.org >>The University of California has a free leaflet on Bio.Control Sources, >listing the suppliers and organisms. Leaflet # 7115. Send me your mail >address and I'll send you a copy. Gary W. Hickman Wow, is there any possibility of getting an electronic copy made available in the archives? There seems to be a lot of interest here... /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From dbreth@cce.cornell.edu Wed Apr 12 05:08:34 1995 Received: from cce.cornell.edu (EMPIRE.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA02875 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 05:08:32 -0700 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0rz1Fg-0003V6C; Wed, 12 Apr 95 08:10 EDT Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 08:08:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Deborah Breth Subject: Re: Biological control leaflet 7115 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: cesanjoaquin@ucdavis.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Gary Hickman, Please send me a bulletin of bio control sources leaflet #7115 to : Deborah I. Breth Cornell Coop. Ext. PO Box 150 Albion, NY 14411 Thank you. From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Thu Apr 13 09:57:38 1995 Received: from mail.tamu.edu (MAIL.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA04674 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:57:36 -0700 Received: from [128.194.212.5] ([128.194.212.5]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id LAA03333 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:58:19 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:57:52 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: Re: biological control >There are two that I know. >One is at North Carolina State University, >National Integrated Pest Management Net >nsoy@unity.ncsu.edu How do I subscribe to this net? \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ Steve Stauffer, Research Assistant (409)847-8967 (voice) Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University (409)845-7977 (fax) College Station, TX 77843-2475 rss2987@acs.tamu.edu /\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ From newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Thu Apr 13 10:11:48 1995 Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (root@lamar.ColoState.EDU [129.82.103.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA05007 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:11:46 -0700 Received: from [129.82.119.155] by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA164258; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:11:22 -0600 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:11:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Steven E. Newman" Sender: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Reply-To: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Message-Id: <40320.newman@lamar.colostate.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: biological control The National IPM Net is a www server. All you need is a web navigator. Steve In message Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:57:52 -0500, rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) writes: > >>There are two that I know. >> One is at North Carolina State University, >> National Integrated Pest Management Net >> nsoy@unity.ncsu.edu >> > > How do I subscribe to this net? > > \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ > Steve Stauffer, Research Assistant (409)847-8967 (voice) > Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University (409)845-7977 (fax) > College Station, TX 77843-2475 rss2987@acs.tamu.edu > /\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ > ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | | Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | | Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | |___________________________________________________________________________| From dharper@biddeford.com Thu Apr 13 11:14:52 1995 Received: from river.biddeford.com (river.biddeford.com [204.120.68.6]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA07635 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:14:48 -0700 Received: from [199.244.145.33] (bidd18.biddeford.com [199.244.145.33]) by river.biddeford.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id OAA02684 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:16:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:16:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199504131816.OAA02684@river.biddeford.com> X-Sender: dharper@river.biddeford.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: dharper@biddeford.com (Don Harper) Subject: Re: biological control >The National IPM Net is a www server. All you need is a web navigator. >What is the URL? thanks-Don Harper >Steve > >In message Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:57:52 -0500, > rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) writes: > >> >>>There are two that I know. >>> One is at North Carolina State University, >>> National Integrated Pest Management Net >>> nsoy@unity.ncsu.edu >>> >> >> How do I subscribe to this net? >> >> \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ >> Steve Stauffer, Research Assistant (409)847-8967 (voice) >> Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University (409)845-7977 (fax) >> College Station, TX 77843-2475 rss2987@acs.tamu.edu >> /\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ >> > ___________________________________________________________________________ >| | >| Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | >| Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | >| Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | >| Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | >| Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | >|___________________________________________________________________________| From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Thu Apr 13 12:05:08 1995 Received: from mail.tamu.edu (MAIL.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA09893 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:05:04 -0700 Received: from [128.194.212.5] ([128.194.212.5]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id OAA14224 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:05:40 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:05:12 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: Re: biological control Thanks. Found it, but it must be too busy. I cannot get in. I'll try again later. Regards, Steve \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ Steve Stauffer, Research Assistant (409)847-8967 (voice) Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University (409)845-7977 (fax) College Station, TX 77843-2475 rss2987@acs.tamu.edu /\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ From agcom15@chiba.netxn.com Thu Apr 13 12:59:25 1995 Received: from chiba.netxn.com (chiba.netxn.com [199.172.49.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA11527 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:59:22 -0700 Received: (agcom15@localhost) by chiba.netxn.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) id NAA12460; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:14:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:14:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Kern County Agricultural Comissioner To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Amendments to the Worker Protection Standard Requirements fo (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Things are happening to the WPS, fellow forumites... Jim... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 11:13:49 -0400 From: S001627@swais.access.gpo.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Amendments to the Worker Protection Standard Requirements fo [Federal Register: April 12, 1995] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 18555]] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 170 [OPP-250103; FRL-4948-5] RIN No. 2070-AC69 and 2070-AC82 Amendments to the Worker Protection Standard Requirements for Crop Advisors and Training Requirements for Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers; Notification to Secretary of Agriculture AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notification to Secretary of Agriculture. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a final rule amending the crop advisor provisions of the Worker Protection Standard and a final rule amending the training requirements for workers and pesticide handlers. These final rules are being issued under the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (FIFRA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Eckerman, Certification and Training, Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm 1101, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA., (703) 305-7371. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 25(a)(2)(B) of FIFRA, the Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any final rule before publication in the Federal Register. If the Secretary comments in writing to the Administrator regarding the final rule, the Administrator shall issue for publication in the Federal Register, with the final rule, the comments of the Secretary of Agriculture, if requested by the Secretary, and the response of the Administrator concerning the Secretary's comments. The Administrator has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a copy of the final rule amending the requirements for training employees and a final rule amending the requirements for crop advisors. The Administrator has also provided a copy of these final rules to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the Senate. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 Administrative Practice and Procedures, Occupational Safety and Health, Pesticides and Pests. Dated: April 5, 1995. Daniel M. Barolo, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 95-9167 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From SIESNET.SIES1.alfrench@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Thu Apr 13 14:28:53 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA13808 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:28:25 -0700 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:28:53 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:29:30 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Amendments to the Worker Protection Standard Requirements (fwd) -Reply >Things are happening to the WPS, fellow forumites...< >Jim...< >[Federal Register: April 12, 1995]< >SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Administrator of EPA has< >forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a final rule amending the< >crop advisor provisions of the Worker Protection Standard and a final< >rule amending the training requirements for workers and pesticide< >handlers. These final rules are being issued under the Federal< >Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (FIFRA).< FIFRA requires that USDA review pesticide regulations prior to their issuance and the above notice means that EPA has provided them to us for that purpose. This is a continuation of the rulemaking process that began in January with five proposals for public comment. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sat Apr 15 13:48:03 1995 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA17505 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 13:48:01 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id QAA23292; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 16:47:29 -0400 Date: 15 Apr 95 16:45:20 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Let's just ignore the labels Message-ID: <950415204519_73507.555_HHB26-1@CompuServe.COM> < ; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 11:58:54 -0700 From: Mac82nd@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA021935102; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:58:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:58:22 -0400 Message-Id: <950417145821_86108062@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Mac82nd@aol.com Subject: Re: Crop advisors don't follow the label? I thought the comments in a recent message were very interesting. They were: "There have been a few comments on the forum lately regarding the proposed (?) exemption for crop advisors and REI and PPI. It was even said that these people would not follow the label if it were not required. Please remember that crop advisors are intelligent people. They were following safe and sane proceedures regarding pesiticdes for many years before the government decided they needed protection. I do not think they will do foolish things just because they are not prevented from doing so by law." I was just wondering if growers aren't "intelligent people?" I really wish people wouldn't make comments on the intelligence of other until they walked a mile in their shoes. This goes for both sides of any issue. From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Apr 17 14:46:46 1995 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA08591 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:46:43 -0700 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.196 ) with SMTP id OAA17119 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:45:57 -0700 Received: from ppp8.igc.org (woodard@ppp8.igc.org [198.94.6.8]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.6 ) with SMTP id OAA27786 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:45:49 -0700 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:45:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199504172145.OAA27786@igc3.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: Crop advisors don't follow the label? Sender: woodard@igc.org Bob Roach Says: >Allowing crop advisors, or any other group, to ignore labels with >impunity would be a great mistake. The one national standard we have agreed. >seems unthinkable to me. I thought the idea was to exempt certified >crop advisors from provisions of 40 CFR Part 170 and not from the >pesticide labels. I cannot believe that this is what U.S. EPA >intended. Could someone from that agency please respond? I would like to see EPA respond as well. The core 'spirit' of the exemption (IMHO) was that if consultants were required to comply with 40 CFR Part 170 (AKA WPS), scouting/advising prices would have had to be raised to such an extent that it would actually be cheaper for growers to choose to not use consultants for implementation of IPM programs, and apply more pesticides instead. The administrations' goal is more IPM programs, not less, so this was viewed as contrary to this goal. Since IPM generally results in decreased pesticide applications or use of 'softer' pesticides, that would imply reduced worker risk, which is part of the final goal of the WPS. The effectiveness of many IPM programs depends on expedient entry after an application. It's common (in Florida anyway) for a target pest to start munching away on a crop before the re-entry interval on many pesticides has even expired. Roger Kaiser says: >remember that crop advisors are intelligent people. They were following >safe and sane proceedures regarding pesiticdes for many years before the >government decided they needed protection. I do not think they will do >foolish things just because they are not prevented from doing so by law." Mac82nd comments: >I was just wondering if growers aren't "intelligent people?" I really wish >people wouldn't make comments on the intelligence of other until they walked >a mile in their shoes. This goes for both sides of any issue. I don't think any negative comment on anyone's intelligence was implied by Roger, but one of the issues that was raised during the comment period on the crop advisor exemption was that many crop advisors were certified by some recognized organization and/or college educated. While real world experience has taught me that neither one of these implies 'intelligence', it was, nevertheless, another major issue brought forth in the comments to justify the proposed exemption. While consultants don't necessarily walk in the same shoes as the grower, they do walk the same path and look at the bottoms ;). /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From woodard@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 18 12:05:49 1995 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA06427 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:05:47 -0700 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.196 ) with SMTP id MAA20402 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:05:01 -0700 Received: from ppp31.igc.org (woodard@ppp31.igc.org [198.94.6.31]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.6 ) with SMTP id MAA15148 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:04:52 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:04:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199504181904.MAA15148@igc3.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 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 research applications Sender: woodard@igc.org I've got one heck of a question that I'd like to get some advice on if anybody would care to take a stab at it. I've tried to ask state enforcement people, and answers are still pretty fuzzy. We, like many other crop advisors, participate in pesticide trials for residue, efficacy, and new labeling. Most of these trials are conducted under GLP (good laboratory practices) as a part of larger studies conducted by the chemical companies. What is confusing us is that we are using pesticides for research, but clearly are not 'government or university researchers', we are crop advisors, but these trials don't fit very well into crop advisor tasks, some of the compounds are not labeled, and some are meant to be blind trials where we get an MSDS, but no label. The best answer the state (Florida) has been able to give is that when we apply pesticides that do have a label, we are subject to the same WPS provisions as handlers or custom applicators, and all bets are off when there is no label. The other issue is that the plots we use are very small, and typically surrounded by production fields where it would be a far stretch to say we were the 'managers' of that land, even though we rent it from the grower. The way we have been handling it is that anyone on the staff who might apply pesticides have been to a train-the-trainer session, and are certified applicators, while the rest of the staff has been trained as workers. When we plan to spray anything, whether it be labeled or not, we post that at our central location, as well as give a copy to the grower whose land we are using for their central posting and worker notification. The problem is that all of this notification is getting to be rather resource intensive, and expensive, and we're wondering if we're doing much more than is required. Just to muddy the waters a little bit, where do breeding trials fall into the scheme of WPS? The tasks are obviously hand labor, but require re-entry on a daily basis to perform the pollinations, which I would call a research activity. One of our most useful pesticides in sweet corn, Lorsban, has a 24 hour re-entry, and a 21 day pre-harvest interval. We were advised by the state OPP that we had to comply with the letter of the label in this case, especially with respect to the PHI, since "the possibility existed that the harvested seed could be consumed". I'm amazed that you can have the same active ingredient hung around your pet's neck, and sprayed on your carpet, but you have to wait nearly a month after a corn application before you can put it in a bag and ship it to be dried for seed. The result for us is that we've had to use more of less effective pesticides in order to comply. In the big picture of breeding trials, much of the work is beginning to be shipped overseas where labor is cheaper, and regulation not an issue. Anybody have any comments? c 'ya Woody /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Tue Apr 18 13:10:55 1995 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA07897 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 13:10:51 -0700 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.10/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id NAA09720 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 13:10:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 13:10:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199504182010.NAA09720@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: Re: consultants and research applications >What is confusing us is that we are using pesticides for research, but >clearly are not 'government or university researchers', Washington State Dept. of Agriculture has a special pesticide applicator license called Research and Demonstration (we have nine different license types in the state). I doubt they veiw it as a consultant license, though most reasearchers in your situation would carry both the Research/Demonstration and Commercial Consultant license types in Washington State. If there is no label, there is no WPS as interpreted in Washington State. However, if there is a label with WPS, all criteria must be met, though licensing covers the training component. Non licensed persons would need to be trained as handlers or workers if applicable. >The way we have been handling it is that anyone on the staff who might apply >pesticides have been to a train-the-trainer session, and are certified >applicators, while the rest of the staff has been trained as workers. When >we plan to spray anything, whether it be labeled or not, we post that at our >central location, as well as give a copy to the grower whose land we are >using for their central posting and worker notification. >The problem is that all of this notification is getting to be rather >resource intensive, and expensive, and we're wondering if we're doing much >more than is required. No formal response, would like to see the answer to the above question as well -- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Wed Apr 19 11:45:27 1995 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA02377 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:45:26 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id OAA13225; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 14:44:54 -0400 Date: 19 Apr 95 14:42:33 EDT From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: aaa Subject: DEMO AVAILABLE: WPS Safety Data Sheet Program Message-ID: <950419184233_71154.2454_DHQ54-1@CompuServe.COM> FYI We (my partner Adrian Bayley, to be exact) had a great time at the San Diego meeting a few weeks ago. Thanks for educating Adrian. As discussed a month ago on this forum, I now have a free demo for our WPS COMPAS Safety Data Sheet Progam for your personal computer. This demo has 70 of the 1500 WPS approved products in both a Safety Data Sheet and Posting Sheet for these 70 products. The Safety Data Sheet has everything but the "Use Direction" from the labels of the products with EPA approved WPS. There is also a corresponding Posting Sheet for each of these WPS products that has 100% of the WPS info from each product label. This includes clearly stated REI (big bold print), PPE for each of the both handler categories and re-entry worker category, plus much more. One side of one page per product - ideal for posting. If you print out a posting sheet and laminate - you have an ideal in-field posting tool. If ypu have already requested - they will be sent early next week. Otherwise, EMail or call and give me your mmailing address. We are looking for feedback - suggestions, etc. Thanks Dr. Earl H. Tryon PH:404/992-5773 4340 Sprucebough Dr. Marietta, GA 30062 I From sgrower1@rain.org Wed Apr 19 12:59:09 1995 Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA04880 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:59:07 -0700 Received: from port62.rain.org by coyote.rain.org(8.6.10/RAIN-1.0) with id MAA28525 SMTP for on Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:53:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:53:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199504191953.MAA28525@coyote.rain.org> X-Sender: sgrower1@mail.rain.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: sgrower1@rain.org (Phil Soderman) Subject: Re: DEMO AVAILABLE: WPS Safety Data Sheet Program I would be interested to try out your demo program. I have a 486 based Pc with 3.5" drive. My address is: Sterling Nursery P.O. Box 1291 Carpinteria Calif 93014 or UPS Sterling Nursery 4901 Meadowview Lane Carpinteria Calif. 93013 Thank for the opportunity Phil Soderman sgrower1@rain.org >FYI > We (my partner Adrian Bayley, to be exact) had a great time at the San >Diego meeting a few weeks ago. Thanks for educating Adrian. > As discussed a month ago on this forum, I now have a free demo for our >WPS COMPAS Safety Data Sheet Progam for your personal computer. This demo has >70 of the 1500 WPS approved products in both a Safety Data Sheet and Posting >Sheet for these 70 products. The Safety Data Sheet has everything but the "Use >Direction" from the labels of the products with EPA approved WPS. There is also >a corresponding Posting Sheet for each of these WPS products that has 100% of >the WPS info from each product label. This includes clearly stated REI (big >bold print), PPE for each of the both handler categories and re-entry worker >category, plus much more. One side of one page per product - ideal for >posting. If you print out a posting sheet and laminate - you have an ideal >in-field posting tool. > If ypu have already requested - they will be sent early next week. > Otherwise, EMail or call and give me your mmailing address. > > We are looking for feedback - suggestions, etc. > > Thanks > Dr. Earl H. Tryon PH:404/992-5773 > 4340 Sprucebough Dr. > Marietta, GA 30062 > I > > > Phil Soderman sgrower1@rain.org Carpinteria, California USA ZONE 10 From RUTHM@mces.msstate.edu Wed Apr 19 13:19:55 1995 Received: from Tut.MsState.Edu (root@Tut.MsState.Edu [130.18.80.36]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA05698 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:19:53 -0700 Received: from MCES.MsState.Edu (CharonPC.MCES.MsState.Edu [130.18.148.4]); by Tut.MsState.Edu using SMTP (8.6.12/6.5m-FWP); id PAA00361; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 15:19:40 -0500 Received: from MCES/MAILQUEUE by MCES.MsState.Edu (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Apr 95 15:19:40 GMT+6 Received: from MAILQUEUE by MCES (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Apr 95 15:19:20 GMT+6 From: "Ruth Morgan" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 15:19:17 CST Subject: Re: DEMO AVAILABLE: WPS Safety Data Sheet Program Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <96CCC7278E@MCES.MsState.Edu> I would appreciate receiving the free demo, WPS COMPAS Safety Data Sheet Program. My address is Ruth Morgan, Box 9661, MS State, MS 39762. Date sent: 19 Apr 95 14:42:33 EDT Send reply to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: aaa Subject: DEMO AVAILABLE: WPS Safety Data Sheet Program FYI We (my partner Adrian Bayley, to be exact) had a great time at the San Diego meeting a few weeks ago. Thanks for educating Adrian. As discussed a month ago on this forum, I now have a free demo for our WPS COMPAS Safety Data Sheet Progam for your personal computer. This demo has 70 of the 1500 WPS approved products in both a Safety Data Sheet and Posting Sheet for these 70 products. The Safety Data Sheet has everything but the "Use Direction" from the labels of the products with EPA approved WPS. There is also a corresponding Posting Sheet for each of these WPS products that has 100% of the WPS info from each product label. This includes clearly stated REI (big bold print), PPE for each of the both handler categories and re-entry worker category, plus much more. One side of one page per product - ideal for posting. If you print out a posting sheet and laminate - you have an ideal in-field posting tool. If ypu have already requested - they will be sent early next week. Otherwise, EMail or call and give me your mmailing address. We are looking for feedback - suggestions, etc. Thanks Dr. Earl H. Tryon PH:404/992-5773 4340 Sprucebough Dr. Marietta, GA 30062 I ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Morgan Pesticide Coordinator and Pesticide Impact Assessment Specialist Mississippi State University FAX: (601) 325-5204 PHONE: (601) 325-8601 EMAIL: ruthm@mces.msstate.edu From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Apr 19 17:36:12 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.99] (gia5mac19.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.99]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA14215 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 17:36:09 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 17:36:15 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: additions to archive There are two new items in the forum archive. One is the EPA Draft Notice for Comment on a proposed policy to deal with products that bear non-WPS-complying labels but remain in channels of trade after the 10/23/95 deadline for label revision. Retailers or others to whom registrants sell their products may be caught with stocks of pesticides in non-complying containers on 10/23/95. This draft notice, with a March 30, 1995, cover memo, was sent to trade associations representing FIFRA product registrants for their comment. Thanks again to Ray McAllister for providing a copy. The name of the file in our archive is "labelpol.dft". Its size is 25k bytes. The second item is the specific EPA guidance concerning enforcement of PPE provisions of the WPS, as published in the Federal Register on April 10, 1995. It includes the 10 factors to be considered in determining the recipient of an enforcement action, and it states the role of employers/owners/operators in assuring that workers use PPE. This is the same document that Jim Brackeen posted last week, now retrievable as a separate file. Filename is "liable-2.epa", and size is 5k bytes. The old song: To obtain a copy of any file in the archive, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu (*not* to wps-forum) the message: GET WPS-FORUM --Howard Rosenberg From sclark@cce.cornell.edu Thu Apr 20 04:48:41 1995 Received: from cce.cornell.edu (EMPIRE.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id EAA01641 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 04:48:39 -0700 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0s1ukr-0003V5C; Thu, 20 Apr 95 07:50 EDT Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:49:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Clark Subject: Re: DEMO AVAILABLE: WPS Safety Data Sheet Program To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <199504191953.MAA28525@coyote.rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thanks for the offer, I would also like to see the program: send on 3.5" floppy for IBM compatible to scott clark Cornell Cooperative Extension 246 Griffing Ave Riverhead, NY 11901 Much appreciated From newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Thu Apr 20 07:46:40 1995 Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (root@lamar.ColoState.EDU [129.82.103.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA03850 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:46:36 -0700 Received: from [129.82.119.155] by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA20844; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 08:46:25 -0600 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 08:47:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Steven E. Newman" Sender: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Reply-To: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Message-Id: <31641.newman@lamar.colostate.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: DEMO AVAILABLE: WPS Safety Data Sheet Program Dr. Tyron, I am very interested in receiving a copy of your WPS Safety Data Sheet Program. My address is in a signature box at the end of this message. Steve Newman In message 19 Apr 95 14:42:33 EDT, Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> writes: > FYI > We (my partner Adrian Bayley, to be exact) had a great time at the San > Diego meeting a few weeks ago. Thanks for educating Adrian. > As discussed a month ago on this forum, I now have a free demo for our > WPS COMPAS Safety Data Sheet Progam for your personal computer. This > demo has 70 of the 1500 WPS approved products in both a Safety Data Sheet > and Posting Sheet for these 70 products. The Safety Data Sheet has > everything but the "Use Direction" from the labels of the products with > EPA approved WPS. There is also a corresponding Posting Sheet for each > of these WPS products that has 100% of the WPS info from each product > label. This includes clearly stated REI (big bold print), PPE for each > of the both handler categories and re-entry worker category, plus much > more. One side of one page per product - ideal for posting. If you > print out a posting sheet and laminate - you have an ideal in-field > posting tool. If ypu have already requested - they will be sent early > next week. Otherwise, EMail or call and give me your mmailing address. > > We are looking for feedback - suggestions, etc. > > Thanks > Dr. Earl H. Tryon PH:404/992-5773 > 4340 Sprucebough Dr. > Marietta, GA 30062 > I > ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | | Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | | Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | |___________________________________________________________________________| From kaiser@marlin.ssnet.com Fri Apr 21 07:58:41 1995 Received: from marlin.ssnet.com (ssnet.com [165.113.8.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA22497 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 07:58:38 -0700 Received: by marlin.ssnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09369; Fri, 21 Apr 95 10:53:11 EDT Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:53:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Roger Kaiser To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Decontamination Sites Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I was reading the comments by the USDA found in the archive (wps.fr9) and noticed that the WPS rules require that Decontamination Sites must be kept near any pesticide treated field at 1/2 mile intervals for 31-32 days after every pesticide application. This is the 24-48 hr REI + 30 days. I find this rule in my July 93 "How to Comply" book. The USDA questioned the reasonableness of this rule. Is this rule still in effect? From pat.marer@wserver.ipm.ucdavis.edu Fri Apr 21 12:19:11 1995 Received: from axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu (axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.41]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA28607 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:19:06 -0700 Received: by axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu; id AA12655; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:24:53 -0700 Message-Id: Date: 21 Apr 1995 12:18:12 -0800 From: "Pat Marer" Subject: New Train-the-trainer Sched To: "wps-forum" X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 4/21/95 11:12 AM New Train-the-trainer Schedule UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROJECT TRAIN-THE-TRAINER WORKSHOPS Following is the latest schedule for instructor training workshops to qualify trainers under the EPA Federal Worker Protection Standard (certified commercial and private applicators and PCAs are already qualified to be trainers). Some of these programs are being conducted by Steve Sutter, UCCE Farm Advisor, under the auspices of the UC IPM Pesticide Education Program. Farm Advisors Gregory Billikopf and Jesus Valencia of the Stanislaus County Cooperative Extension Office will be conducting workshops for trainers of fieldworkers in Spanish. For information, contact them at (209)525-6654. For further information about the UC IPM train-the-trainer workshops contact Patrick Marer at (916)752-7694. CLOSED April 26 - Bakersfield 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) May 1 - Visalia 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 4 - Visalia 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 5 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 8 - Oxnard 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) May 8 - Oxnard 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) May 9 - Oxnard 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) May 9 - Oxnard 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) CLOSED May 23 - Ventura 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) May 23 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) May 25 - San Luis Obispo 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) May 25 - San Luis Obispo 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) CLOSED May 26 - San Luis Obispo 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) June 2 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) June 9 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) June 16 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) NOTE: Space is limited at each location. Early registration is strongly recommended. UCIPM will be conducting an extensive series of workshops in the fall of 1995 for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers in both Spanish and English. Stay tuned to the WPS Forum for announcements or call (916)752-7691 to be placed on the mailing list for notification of upcoming meetings. From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Fri Apr 21 13:57:57 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA01254 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:57:55 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:20:55 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:45:50 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Decontamination Sites -Reply For the REI plus 30 days, decontamination sites must be within 1/4 mile of the worker, but outside of the treated area, unless that worker is a no contact worker or 1/4 mile beyond vehicular access (in which case you put it as close as the vehicle can go). It is not clear to me how an employer would comply during this period, other than not perform the work, if the treated area extended more than 1/4 mile in all directions from a place where hand labor was necessary. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 > I was reading the comments by the USDA found in the archive< >(wps.fr9) and noticed that the WPS rules require that< >Decontamination Sites must be kept near any pesticide treated field at< >1/2 mile intervals for 31-32 days after every pesticide application. < >This is the 24-48 hr REI + 30 days.< > I find this rule in my July 93 "How to Comply" book. The USDA < >questioned the reasonableness of this rule. Is this rule still in effect?< From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Apr 24 10:59:01 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.99] (gia5mac19.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.99]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA07081 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 10:58:58 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 10:59:04 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Lou True Reply on Decontamination Sites [forwarding message that got hung up in system error-checker] From: LTrue@aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:41:04 -0400 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Decontamination Sites -Reply This is in response to Al French's note indicating that a decontamination station for workers may not be in a treated area. In fact, the station may be in a treated area during the 30 days after the REI has expired. Stations serving workers may not be in an area BEING treated or, as Al noted, in an area under an REI unless necessary to serve early-entry workers. Lou True From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Apr 25 11:18:02 1995 Received: from DialupEudora (eudora@are.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.175.17]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA06485 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:17:57 -0700 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:17:57 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Bob Roach post on Chemical Resistance [forwarding another message that got held up by esoteric system "feature" in the new version of ListProc] Date: 24 Apr 95 23:40:12 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Long live the resistance Can anyone tell me what the new WPS definition of "chemical resistant" really means? It says something like no measurable amount will pass through it during use. When I go to buy chemical resistant suits what kind should I buy? Looking in catalogs I see some suits advertised as chemical resistant but I suspect that some measurable amount of pesticide would pass through them during use. Some of the suits I see represented as chemical resistant would not be considered so in California where the state put a policy letter out on this in 1989. In fact, since we can measure down to the parts-per-nothing if we want, what measurable amount are we talking about? What is zero depends on the minimum detection level. And are we talking about testing a swatch of fabric or a person in a suit? The fabric may be tight but suits can have seams that leak and a bellows effect that sucks material inside the suit. When the crotch rips out it is no longer resistant to chemicals. In fact, it is my understanding that the saranex or polyethylene laminated suits generally considered to be chemical resistant provide about 95% protection when used properly. Does the U.S. EPA consider this type of suit to be chemical resistant? I know they have a PPE guidance document but it is really of no help in deciding these matters. It is more of a technical document than a guide for end users. What about some of the new breathable but water repellent fabrics? Are they chemical resistant as defined by the WPS? ****************************************************************** "Men hate the truth. They would rather meet a tiger in the road." - Robinson Jeffers Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From LTrue@aol.com Tue Apr 25 15:22:40 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA13052 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 15:22:38 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA173538526; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 18:22:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 18:22:07 -0400 Message-Id: <950425182205_96046530@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Bob Roach post on Chemica... This is in response to Bob Roach's 4/24 message on Chemical-Resistant (CR) suits. First, it is exceedingly rare, on labels bearing WPS instructions, to have a requirement for CR suits. This was deliberate due to EPA's concern about the risk of heat-related illness. Indeed, most such requirements on old labels were altered during the WPS label revisions and replaced with coveralls, which WPS does not require to be CR. If, however, despite heat stress concerns, CR suits are thought to be needed, it may be useful to use the statements on nearly all WPS labels for the selection of CR gloves. Such labels usually give one or more examples of CR materials that may be used with the product, as well as a "chemical resistance category" -- a letter from B to H or an indication that waterproof materials are sufficient. The labels also refer, and allow users to rely upon, other EPA guidance. This guidance is found in the brochure produced by EPA and USDA, "Choosing Chemical-Resistant PPE." The more recent version of that brochure contains a table comparing the CR value of the most common mater ials for each of the CR categories. (Note that, as new materials are introduced, EPA can revise the guidance far more quickly than it could alter either regulations or labels.) There is other useful guidance in the brochure .. EPA recognized that the general definition of CR in WPS that Bob cites did not provide practical guidance for many users. That was the reason for the approach used in EPA's WPS relabeling guidance to registrants. Bob also raised questions about PPE maintenance (tears, etc.) that are addressed, at least in part, in the WPS requirements for PPE inspection and maintenance. In general then, the labeling and guidance approach taken by EPA could no doubt be improved further, but it nonetheless goes a long way toward reducing user uncertainty in selecting CR PPE. Lou True From pat.marer@wserver.ipm.ucdavis.edu Tue Apr 25 15:24:17 1995 Received: from axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu (axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.41]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA13187 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 15:24:15 -0700 Received: by axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu; id AA13843; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 15:30:17 -0700 Message-Id: Date: 25 Apr 1995 15:24:18 -0800 From: "Pat Marer" Subject: F.Y.I. WPS Instructor Trai To: "WPS Forum" X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 4/25/95 3:17 PM F.Y.I. WPS Instructor Training Workshops - Update 4-25-95 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROJECT TRAIN-THE-TRAINER WORKSHOPS Following is the latest schedule for instructor training workshops to qualify trainers under the EPA Federal Worker Protection Standard (certified commercial and private applicators and PCAs are already qualified to be trainers). Some of these programs are being conducted by Steve Sutter, UCCE Farm Advisor, under the auspices of the UC IPM Pesticide Education Program. Farm Advisors Gregory Billikopf and Jesus Valencia of the Stanislaus County Cooperative Extension Office are also conducting workshops for trainers of fieldworkers in Spanish. For information, contact them at (209)525-6654. For further information about the UC IPM train-the-trainer workshops contact Patrick Marer at (916)752-7694. CLOSED April 26 - Bakersfield 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English - Marer and Zavala) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English - Marer) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish - Zavala) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English - Marer) CLOSED April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish - Zavala) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English - Marer) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish - Zavala) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English - Marer) CLOSED April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish- Zavala) May 1 - Visalia 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 4 - Visalia 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 5 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S.Sutter) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 8 - Oxnard 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) May 8 - Oxnard 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) May 9 - Oxnard 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) May 9 - Oxnard 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Wally Havens at (805)388-2727 to register) CLOSED May 23 - Ventura 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English - Marer and Zavala) May 23 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English - Marer) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) CLOSED May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish - Zavala) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) CLOSED May 24 - Ventura 1pm - 5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish - Zavala) CLOSED May 24 - Ventura 1pm - 5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish - Weber) May 25 - Pismo Beach 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English - Marer) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) May 25 - Pismo Beach 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish - Zavala) (contact UCIPM at (916)752-7691 to register) CLOSED May 26 - Pismo Beach 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English - Marer and Zavala) June 1 - Modesto 8:30 am: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $20 (Spanish - G. Billikopf and J. Valencia) (contact Melynda Auge at (209)525-6654 to register) June 2 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) June 9 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) June 16 - Fresno 8:30am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (English - S. Sutter) (contact Steve Sutter at (209)456-7560 to register) NOTE: Space is limited at each location. Early registration is strongly recommended. From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Apr 25 16:40:08 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA15097 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 16:40:06 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id TAA24741; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 19:38:57 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA798863724; Tue, 25 Apr 95 19:23:47 EST Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 19:23:47 EST Message-Id: <9503257988.AA798863724@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Bob Roach post on Chemical Resistance Bob Roach has posted an interesting set of questions on PPE and chemical resistance. I will do my best to address each question... ** What does the "new" WPS definition of "chemical resistant" really mean? The WPS Standard states that "chemical resistant PPE ... shall be made of material that allows no measurable movement of the pesticide being used through the material during use." Put into a useful framework, you would pick a material that would permit no breakthrough (permeation of the solvent or active ingredient) during your period of handling or other activities. In other words, you might want to select one protective material for doing a short duration handling task, but would pick a more protective material for doing an open cab, airblast application on 10 Ac of orchard. Let's talk about GLOVES first, as a PPE example. Go to a product label and look for two things, 1) either a category indication, such as Category A, B, or C... and match this up with the glove material recommendations on the EPA Chemical Resistance Category Selection Chart; or 2) the specific registrant recommendations for glove types on the label. In many cases, the registrant will provide more than one choice. If you look at the EPA table, you will find there are multiple possibilities, and your choice will be dependent upon the duration of your task. And, selection of protective suits is similar in terms of having to match needs with your performance requirements. For "coveralls", you should read the product label very carefully. Coverall means a cotton or cotton/poly coverall; WPS sets forth the definition and MINIMUM requirement, handlers may ELECT to wear a more protective garment, Tyvek, PE-coated Tyvek, Saranex.... than the minimum WPS requirement on the label. Roy (on FORUM-CAL/DPR) and his associate Dennis Gibbons have been addressing this issue as well. The Agency, in general, has been discouraging the use of "chemical resistant" (CR) suits. In rare instances, the Agency has required CR suits on a FEW product product labels; for Telone, those persons engaged in cleaning bulk tanks are required to wear a chemical resistant suit. Unfortunately, Bob, chemical resistance has to be defined in terms of the barrier material and the challenge solution/material. Unfortunately, pesticides are also not "neat" chemicals, so this makes the issue and answer even more involved. The selection also depends upon how long the task will last, and whether there is a vapor, liquid, or solid (particulate) concern. As for specific guidance, on a product-by-product basis, it is not possible to tell you precisely which CR suit to pick. On many WPS labels, a CR suit will not be required. I can share some very broad & general statements (recognize that there are many protective materials in the market place; and many combinations of various materials are being put together to add "new" & "better" qualities for the final protective garment): ** An inexpensive Tyvek suit will protect against dusts and solid particulates. It's about 98% effective against 0.5 micron or larger particles. It will "sheet off" splashes of water and dilute aqueous acids/bases; it will NOT PROVIDE any degree of protection against short chain ketones, organic vapors, fumigants, alcohols, and hydrocarbons at high concentrations. [Manufacturers can provide a detailed list of breakthru times against "neat" solvents, and may be able to answer questions about some pesticides.] It is relative strong, but inexpensive suits may have serged seams that rip easily. Bound seams are better, but cost more. Also, heat stress may be a concern. This is a nice choice for handling a granular application with no vapor concerns mentioned on the label. There are more protective choices for airblast applications than Tyvek. ** PE laminated Tyvek suits are the next level of protection above Tyvek. According to the manufacturers information that I have, this provides good particulate protection, general water-based protection, and very limited protection against sensitizers, liquid, and defatting agents. It has no air permeability, and will provide protection against inorganic acids, bases, and limited (short term/few minutes) protection against hydrocarbons, amides. Immediate breakthru would occur for concentrated liquid sulfides, acetone, ammonium hydroxide, inorganic gases and vapors, aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic halogen compounds, and others. ** Saranex 23-P is more protective than Tyvek or PE-coated Tyvek. This provides, according to manufacturer's information, general water-based protection, protection against sensitizers, liquid, and defatting agents, plus resistance to corrosives. It provides good protection to a broad range of materials (far too numerous to list here), and is a barrier to many chemicals in the liquid or vapor state. (I will provide an 800 number for getting the breakthru times). THIS MATERIAL IS LIQUID AND VAPOR IMPERVIOUS, SO WORK TIME IS LIMITED TO AVOID HEAT STRESS. These suits are not inexpensive, the seams are bound (liquid resistant) or serged and taped (vapor tight). ** There are many, many more protective materials. Protection beyond Saranex is generally encountered in tasks such as hazardous material spill response. ** As to where "breathable, but water-repellant" materials fall out on this continuum? This is another "that depends" response; there are a fair number of "new" breathable fabrics on the market now. [Disclaimer: I'd prefer to keep tradenames/manufacturers to a minimum here, no personal or professional endorsements are intended.] Some of these materials were targeted at the medical/surgical industry...they breathe, but will not allow liquid water, blood, or alcohols to permeate. Additionally they are QUITE wearable, as in very comfortable, breathable, do not "rustle", and are approximately the same thickness as denim. These "breathables" offer NO vapor protection. Other "breathable" materials, those which are being marketed now and to which I suspect Bob is referring to, offer the same type of protection. They will "sheet off" aqueous liquids, may be impervious to some corrosives (acid/bases), plus also allow perspiration to escape, have been reported to be "air impervious", and do not allow small particles to pass thru the fabric. In the manufacturer's material that I have, the manufacturer specifically states the garments are NOT SUITABLE FOR VAPOR PROTECTION. Their level of protection is roughly about the same as PE-coated Tyvek, "breathables" have an added level of comfort for the wearer. (The level of protection will depend upon the composition and construction of the fabric naturally.) And, "chemical resistance" is defined by the material handled, the task being done, and the duration of the task. The 800 number indicated above is 800-448-9835. Request the ASTM Recommended List of Liquid and Gaseous Chemicals for Evaluating Protective Clothing Materials in Testing Programs (ASTM F1001). Judy Smith/EPA is not recommended where there are vapor concerns. to the specific glove recommendations by the registrant From 73507.555@compuserve.com Wed Apr 26 22:15:34 1995 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA15918 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 22:15:31 -0700 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id AAA07131; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 00:24:19 -0400 Date: 27 Apr 95 00:22:51 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Resistance Message-ID: <950427042250_73507.555_HHB27-1@CompuServe.COM> Judy, Thanks for your thoughts on chemical resistant suits. While it is true that not many products now require CR suits, many do require CR aprons for mixing and loading. It is cool here so many applicators have elected to use the CR suit in place of the apron. The employee does not have to don it for every mixing operation. The suit is better liked than aprons. This may be because the coverall is a traditional male garment and the apron is usually worn by women. With the new WPS labels, some applicators are rethinking their PPE ensemble. Night applicators, who apply the hotter materials, like the laminated suits because they are warmer. I think that because of the cost factor, we will be seeing more applicators with non-CR coveralls and aprons for mixing and loading. The chemical selectivity chart does address the resistance of glove materials to different groups of pesticides. Could this approach not be expanded to materials used in suits? This may be too complicated. People need simple solutions. Many want to comply but they have difficulty figuring out what to do. We need to help them. They are not chemists or material scientists. Actually, I see it as quite simple now, only polyethylene or Saranex laminated suits (considering disposables) are considered chemical resistant. However, some of the PPE catalogs I have seen are somewhat deceptive. And from an enforcement standpoint, sometimes the inspector finds the applicator wearing a "generic" suit with no labeling to indicate what it is. Then we have to follow up on that. It would be simpler if manufacturers would label all suits as to materials and better yet to have some sort of color code. This would also help applicators to get the right suit on. >> Unfortunately, Bob, chemical resistance has to be defined in >> terms of the barrier material and the challenge >> Solution/material. >> Unfortunately, pesticides are also not "neat" chemicals, so >> this makes the issue and answer even more involved. The >> selection also depends upon how long the task will last, and >> whether there is a vapor, liquid, or solid (particulate) >> concern. >> >> As for specific guidance, on a product-by-product basis, it is >> not possible to tell you precisely which CR suit to pick. On >> many WPS labels, a CR suit will not be required. ****************************************************************** "Men hate the truth. They would rather meet a tiger in the road." - Robinson Jeffers Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 08:09:56 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA20806 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:09:54 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id LAA26628; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 11:08:44 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799005903; Thu, 27 Apr 95 11:01:01 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 11:01:01 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799005903@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Resistance Bob, Thanks for the message and observations about what choices are being made in your part of the US. I have heard from some of my Idaho connections that they too like the Saranex (and other polylaminates) for both the chemical resistance AND the warmth factor. It is understandable that a suit might also be preferred over an apron in some operations, i.e. mixing/loading. Aprons, especially those reaching down to or below kneecap level, can present a hazard to a worker functioning around equipment with unshielded, moving, mechanical parts. Suits/ coveralls, due to their fit, are not as likely to be caught in equipment. In terms of heat stress, I anticipate that those regions that conduct operations in 85+ F or warmer conditions will favor cotton coveralls and aprons. (Information about this is always welcome.) Trying to develop a selection chart for chemically resistant suits would be an overwhelming task. Having attended an INDA (Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry) Conference, I think it is accurate to state that the protective fabric technology has reached the "designer stage"; this makes development of material selection charts very difficult. Also, I'm surprised that the nonwovens industry hasn't recognized that agriculture has about 2 million workers and started to capitalize on this new market. As for labeling on suits, this is a situation where the buyer should beware. A "white disposable suit" without a label may NOT be Tyvek. My advice to any grower concerning disposable suits is simple: Tell your distributor that you will NOT ACCEPT and WILL RETURN any disposable suit that does not identify the material type and manufacturer. A few polite and firm statements of "no label, no sale" can deter future enforcement problems. Some manufacturers stitch in a tag/label that bears their company name/address/logo, the fabric name, the size, a catalog no., occasionally an 800 telephone number, etc.--look for and insist on this when buying disposables. From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Apr 27 09:08:25 1995 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA21989 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:08:20 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:07:47 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:04:39 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re: Resistance -Reply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from localhost (server@localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA20917; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:12:12 -0700 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA20806 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:09:54 -0700 Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id LAA26628; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 11:08:44 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799005903; Thu, 27 Apr 95 11:01:01 EST Reply-To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Sender: owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN Bob, Thanks for the message and observations about what choices are being made in your part of the US. I have heard from some of my Idaho connections that they too like the Saranex (and other polylaminates) for both the chemical resistance AND the warmth factor. It is understandable that a suit might also be preferred over an apron in some operations, i.e. mixing/loading. Aprons, especially those reaching down to or below kneecap level, can present a hazard to a worker functioning around equipment with unshielded, moving, mechanical parts. Suits/ coveralls, due to their fit, are not as likely to be caught in equipment. In terms of heat stress, I anticipate that those regions that conduct operations in 85+ F or warmer conditions will favor cotton coveralls and aprons. (Information about this is always welcome.) Trying to develop a selection chart for chemically resistant suits would be an overwhelming task. Having attended an INDA (Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry) Conference, I think it is accurate to state that the protective fabric technology has reached the "designer stage"; this makes development of material selection charts very difficult. Also, I'm surprised that the nonwovens industry hasn't recognized that agriculture has about 2 million workers and started to capitalize on this new market. As for labeling on suits, this is a situation where the buyer should beware. A "white disposable suit" without a label may NOT be Tyvek. My advice to any grower concerning disposable suits is simple: Tell your distributor that you will NOT ACCEPT and WILL RETURN any disposable suit that does not identify the material type and manufacturer. A few polite and firm statements of "no label, no sale" can deter future enforcement problems. Some manufacturers stitch in a tag/label that bears their company name/address/logo, the fabric name, the size, a catalog no., occasionally an 800 telephone number, etc.--look for and insist on this when buying disposables. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ?If growers could influence PPE manufacturers to provide product information on the label, by not buying garments missing such information, couldn't they also influence manufacturers to design a safer apron that fits more tightly? From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 10:13:38 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA24294 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:13:35 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id NAA29742; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 13:12:26 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799013325; Thu, 27 Apr 95 13:06:44 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 13:06:44 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799013325@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Tangent/Suit-Apron Wish List Forum members: At points I speak with members of the Industrial Safety Equipment Association. Some of the members are manufacturers of chemically resistant suits, aprons, etc. I'd be willing to compile, and relay a user "wish" list to the Association that reflects the wants/needs of the pesticides community. Please recognize there are tradeoffs; more features usually command higher prices per unit, etc. Beyond good product labels, possibly a color coding system, what specifically would you like to have manufacturers consider to make their product or product services more functional/better for your purposes? Judy Smith/EPA From newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Thu Apr 27 10:49:18 1995 Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (root@lamar.ColoState.EDU [129.82.103.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA25356 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:49:15 -0700 Received: from [129.82.119.155] by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA100010; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 11:49:11 -0600 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 11:50:28 -0600 (CST) From: "Steven E. Newman" Sender: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Reply-To: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Message-Id: <42630.newman@lamar.colostate.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: WPS Tangent/Suit-Apron Wish List An idea to include in your "Wish List" Many of the suits that are not chemically resistant or a polylaminate, do not have a flap over the zipper. We are recommending to those using a suit as this when mixing/handling to where an apron to prevent any seepage via the zipper. More of the suits need a flap covering the zipper. Steven Newman In message Thu, 27 Apr 95 13:06:44 EST, SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV writes: > > Forum members: > > At points I speak with members of the Industrial > Safety Equipment Association. Some of the members > are manufacturers of chemically resistant suits, aprons, etc. > I'd be willing to compile, and relay a user "wish" list to the > Association that reflects the wants/needs of the pesticides community. > > Please recognize there are tradeoffs; more features usually > command higher prices per unit, etc. Beyond good product labels, > possibly a color coding system, what specifically would you like to > have manufacturers consider to make their product or product services > more functional/better for your purposes? > > Judy Smith/EPA > ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | | Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | | Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | |___________________________________________________________________________| From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 11:21:39 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA26602 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 11:21:35 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id OAA01597; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 14:20:27 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799017407; Thu, 27 Apr 95 14:16:18 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 14:16:18 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799017407@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re[2]: WPS Tangent/Suit-Apron Wish List Noted...thanks Steve! Judy An idea to include in your "Wish List" Many of the suits that are not chemically resistant or a polylaminate, do not have a flap over the zipper. We are recommending to those using a suit as this when mixing/handling to where an apron to prevent any seepage via the zipper. More of the suits need a flap covering the zipper. Steven Newman In message Thu, 27 Apr 95 13:06:44 EST, SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV writes: > > Forum members: > > At points I speak with members of the Industrial > Safety Equipment Association. Some of the members > are manufacturers of chemically resistant suits, aprons, etc. > I'd be willing to compile, and relay a user "wish" list to the > Association that reflects the wants/needs of the pesticides community. > > Please recognize there are tradeoffs; more features usually > command higher prices per unit, etc. Beyond good product labels, > possibly a color coding system, what specifically would you like to > have manufacturers consider to make their product or product services > more functional/better for your purposes? > > Judy Smith/EPA > ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | | Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | | Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | |___________________________________________________________________________| From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 12:10:44 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA28188 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:10:41 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA02771; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 15:09:32 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799020351; Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:01:04 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:01:04 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799020351@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: EPA Action: Reduced REIs for Low Risk Pesticides Forum members: EPA has completed the five actions that were released for public comment in January 1995. WORKER PROTECTION PROGRAM UPDATE: Reduced Restricted Entry Intervals for Low Risk Pesticides In April 1995, EPAA completed a pesticide regulation action that would reduce the restricted entry intervals (REIs) from 12 hours to 4 hours for certain low risk pesticides covered by the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The REI is the time period after a pesticide application when workers may not enter a pesticide treated area without protective clothing. This action to reduce the REIs applies only to low risk pesticide products that have active ingredients on the candidate list published in the Federal Register Notice of this action. BACKGROUND The 1992 WPS established an interim minimum REI of 12 hours for all end use pesticide products for agricultural uses. Longer interim REIs were established for more toxic products. Since 1992, numerous registrants and pesticide users have asked EPA to consider reducing the minimum 12 hour REI for lower toxicity products that they believe do not need a 12 hour REI to protect workers. In response, in January 1995, the Agency addressed these concerns with a published proposal for public comment. The Agency has considered the comments received and determined that reducing the REIs for low risk pesticides would still provide adequate protection to workers. Moreover, reducing the REI would provide agricultural producers with greater flexibility and may promote the use of these inherently less toxic products over those with greater risks and longer REIs. The Agency concludes that the modification of the REIs will not result in unreasonable risk to workers. Accordingly, the Agency established a selection criteria for active ingredients with low toxicity, which would make products with these active ingredients eligible for shorter REIs. As a result of this action, a list of 114 active ingredients, currently subject to WPS requirements, were determined to meet the lower toxicity criteria. SUMMARY OF FINAL ACTION This action will allow pesticide registrants, whose products and active ingredients meet the Agency's lower toxicity criteria, to: o Reduce the WPS REIs from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk pesticides; o Revise their labeling to reflect the reduced REI by notifying EPA; o Make REI label changes by notification until December 1995; o Make REI label changes through the regular label amendment process after December 1995; o Propose additions to the candidate active ingredient until December 1995. For more information call (703) 305-7666 or 305-7371. 4/95 Judy Smith/EPA From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 12:27:49 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA29001 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:27:46 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA03172; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 15:26:37 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799021377; Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:19:57 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:19:57 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799021377@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: EPA Action: Final Rule Amendment - Crop Advisors Forum members: EPA has finalized the 5 actions that were released for public comment in January 1995. WORKER PROTECTION PROGRAM UPDATE: Final Rule Amendment - Crop Advisors In April 1995, EPA completed a final rule amendment to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) that exempts certified or licensed crop advisors and persons under their direct supervision while performing crop advisor tasks from WPS provisions except for pesticide safety training. BACKGROUND In July 1994, EPA received a petition from a coalition of agricultural organizations that recommended exempting crop advisors from the WPS. In a January 1995 Federal Register Notice, EPA proposed for comment an exemption of certain crop advisors from certain WPS requirements. EPA has considered comments received and has issued a final determination. SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE AMENDMENT o Certified or licensed crop advisors and persons under their direct supervision are exempt from WPS provisions except for pesticide safety training. o The exemption applies only after pesticide application ends and while performing crop advising tasks. o The exemption describes what constitutes "direct supervision" and the information that crop advisors must convey to those under their direct supervision. o Certified or licensed crop advisors may substitute pesticide safety training received during certification or licensing, if it is equivalent to WPS pesticide handler training. o In order to allow time for acquiring certification or licensing, these provisions will be phased in by exempting from WPS all persons doing crop advising tasks until May 1, 1996. DISCUSSION As handlers under the WPS, crop advisors may enter treated areas during application and the restricted entry interval without time limitations, if provided with the required personal protective equipment (PPE) specified on the product labeling and other protections provided for handlers. Employees of agricultural establishments who are performing crop advisor tasks in a treated area within 30 days of the expiration of the restricted entry interval are provided the same protection as workers under WPS. The exemption established by this action allows certified or licensed crop advisors to choose appropriate protection to be utilized while performing crop advising tasks in treated areas after the end of pesticide application. This rule also establishes a temporary exemption for all persons while doing crop advising tasks in order to allow time to acquire certification or licensing. EPA is exempting knowledgeable and experienced crop advisors, and persons under their direct supervision, from the PPE, knowledge of labeling and site specific information, decontamination, and emergency assistance requirements of the WPS after pesticide application ends and only when performing crop advising tasks. Certified or licensed crop advisors may substitute pesticide safety training received during the Federal, State or Tribal approved certification or licensing program if such training is at least equivalent to the WPS training. For more information call (703) 305-7666 or 305-7371. 4/95 From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 12:53:10 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA00345 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:53:02 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA03865; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 15:51:49 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799022884; Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:45:06 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:45:06 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799022884@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: EPA Action: Final Rule Amendment - Training Requirements Forum members: The Agency has finalized the five actions that were released for public comment in January 1995. WORKER PROTECTION PROGRAM UPDATE: Final Rule Amendment - Training Requirements In April 1995, EPA completed a final rule amendment to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) regarding the grace period (time before a worker must be trained) and the retraining interval for worker pesticide safety training. BACKGROUND In a January 1995 Federal Register Notice, EPA addressed concerns raised by farmworker groups and agricultural employer groups regarding the grace period and the retraining period for worker pesticide safety training. In this Notice, the Agency proposed various options to modify these WPS requirements and solicited public comment. The Agency has considered comments received and has issued a final determination. SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE AMENDMENT o The 5 day grace period for worker training will become effective January 1, 1996. o Beginning January 1, 1996, agricultural employers must assure that untrained workers receive basic pesticide safety information before they enter a treated area on the establishment. No more than 5 days after their initial employment has commenced, all untrained agricultural workers must receive the commplete WPS pesticide safety training. o The retraining interval for workers and handlers is 5 years. DISCUSSION As of January 1, 1996, the agricultural employer shall assure that a worker receives basic pesticide safety information before they enter a treated area on the establishment. This would provide basic safety information to workers while they wait for the complete WPS pesticide safety training which is required within the first 5 days of entering a treated area. The agricultuural employer must assure the information is communicated to agricultural workers in a manner they can understand. In cooperation with USDA and States, EPA will develop and distribute a model handout that will provide the basic pesticide safety information. Agricultural employers may use this handout, develop their own, or use other materials that contain the required basic safety information. Agricultural employers must be able to verify compliance with this requirement. The basic pesticide safety information must include the following concepts: o Pesticides may be on or in plants, irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications. o Prevent pesticides from entering your body by: o Following directions and/or signs about keeping out of treated or restricted areas o Washing before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet o Wearing work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues o Washing/showering with soap and water, shampoo hair and put on clean clothes after work o Washing work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again o Washing immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body and, as soon as possible, showering, shampooing, and changing into clean clothes o Further training will be provided within 5 days For more information call (703) 305-7666 or 305-7371. 4/95 From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 13:33:02 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA01483 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 13:32:57 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id QAA04751; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:31:48 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799025287; Thu, 27 Apr 95 16:16:15 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 16:16:15 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799025287@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: EPA Action: Exception for Irrigation Activities Forum members: EPA has finalized the 5 actions that were released for public comment on Janaury 11, 1995. WORKER PROTECTION PROGRAM UPDATE: Exception for Irrigation Activities In April 1995, EPA competed an exception to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) that would allow, under specific conditions, workers to enter pesticide treated areas during a restricted entry interval (REI) to perform irrigation tasks. The REI is the time period after a pesticide application when workers may not enter a pesticide treated area without protective clothing. BACKGROUND Under the WPS, each pesticide label specifies an REI, usually ranging from 12 to 72 hours. The 1992 WPS limited worker early entry activity in treated areas under an REI to 1 hour in a 24 hour period. In July 1994, EPA received a petition from a coalition of agricultural oganizations. These organizations recommended an exception to the WPS for performing irrigation tasks. EPA considered the petition, and in a January 1995 Federal Register Notice, proposed to grant such a nationwide exception. In the Notice, EPA also solicited public comment. The public comments received helped to persuade EPA that there could be significant economic impacts if certain irrigation tasks were prohibited during the REI. Therefore, the Agency is granting an exception to the early entry prohibition for certain irrigation activities. SUMMARY OF FINAL ACTION This exception allows workers the flexibility during an REI to perform irrigation tasks that could not have been foreseen and which, if delayed, would cause significant economic loss. At the same time, the exception includes significant provisions to limit pesticide exposure and risk to employees performing irrigation tasks. The conditions of the exception for early entry irrigation activities are: o The workers' contact with treated surfaces is minimal and is limited to the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms; o The pesticide product does not have a statement in the labeling requiring double notification (workers must be notified both verbally and by posting of these high toxicity pesticides); o Personal protective equipment for early entry is provided to the worker and must either conform with the label requirements or include at least coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, socks, chemical resistant footwear, and eyewear (if eyewear is required by the product labeling); o No hand labor activity (such as hoeing, picking, pruning, etc.) is performed; o The time in treated areas under a REI for any worker may not exceed 8 hours in a 24 hour period; o The workers do not enter the area during the first 4 hours, and until applicable ventilation criteria have been met, and until any label specified inhalation exposure level has been reached; o Before workers enter a treated area under an REI, the agriultural employer shall give them oral or wirtten notification of the specifics of the exception to early entry. The notification must be in a language that the workers understand. For more information call (703) 305-7666 or 305-7371. 4/95 From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 27 13:45:39 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA01950 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 13:45:36 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id QAA05039; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:44:28 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA799026047; Thu, 27 Apr 95 16:39:41 EST Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 16:39:41 EST Message-Id: <9503277990.AA799026047@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: EPA Action: Exception for Limited Contact Activities Forum members: The Agency has finalized the five actions released for public comment in January 1995. WORKER PROTECTION PROGRAM UPDATE: Exception for Limited Contact Activities In April 1995, EPA completed an exception to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) that would allow, under specified conditions, workers to enter pesticide treated areas during a restricted entry interval (REI) to perform tasks that involve limited contact with pesticide treated surfaces. The REI is the time period after a pesticide application when workers may not enter a pesticide treated area without protective clothing. BACKGROUND Under the WPS, each pesticide label specifies a REI, usually ranging from 12 to 72 hours. The 1992 WPS limited worker early entry activity in treated area under a REI to 1 hour in a 24 hour period. In July 1994, EPA received a petition from a coalition of agricultural organizations. These organizations recommended an exception to the WPS for performing tasks involving limited contact with pesticide treated surfaces. EPA considered the petition, and in a January 1995 Federal Register Notice, proposed to grant such a nationwide exception. In the Notice, EPA also solicited public comment. The public comments received helped to persuade EPA that there could be significant economic impacts if certain limited contact tasks were prohibited during the REI. Therefore, the Agency is granting an exception to the early entry prohibition for limited contact activities. SUMMARY OF FINAL ACTION This exception allows workers the flexibility during an REI to perform limited contact tasks that could not have been foreseen and which, if delayed, would cause significant economic loss. At the same time, the exception includes significant provisions to limit pesticide exposure and risk to employees performing limited contact tasks. The conditions of the exception for limited contact, early entry activities are: o The workers' contact with treated surfaces is minimal and is limited to the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms; o The pesticide product does not have a statement in the labeling requiring double notification (workers must be notified both verbally and by posting of these high toxicity pesticides); o Personal protective equipment for early entry is provided to the worker and must either conform with the label requirements or include at least coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, socks, chemical resistant footwear, and eyewear (if eyewear is required by the product labeling); o No hand labor activity (such as hoeing, picking, pruning, etc.) is performed; o The time in treated area under a REI for any worker may not exceed 8 hours in a 24 hour period; o The workers do not enter the area during the first 4 hours, and until applicable ventilation criteria have been met, and until any label specified inhalation exposure levels has been reached; o Before workers enter a treated area under an REI, the agricultural employer shall give them oral or written notification of the specifics of the exception to early entry. The notification must be in a language that the workers understand. For more information call (703) 305-7666 and 305-7371. 4/95 From MNPPPest@aol.com Thu Apr 27 15:49:16 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA06840 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 15:49:13 -0700 From: MNPPPest@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA247162921; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 18:48:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 18:48:42 -0400 Message-Id: <950427184750_98723130@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Field Worker Is it mandatory for field workers to wear long sleeve shirts and long pants when entering a field which has been treated with a pesticide, but the REI has expired? From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Apr 27 16:54:34 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.85] (gia5mac5.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.85]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA09066 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:54:30 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:54:37 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: EPA summary release on WPS amendments Below is a release from EPA summarizing the five actions that Judy Smith announced in more detailed posts earlier today. -------------------------------------------------- THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1995 EPA AMENDS WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES EPA today announced five regulatory actions to protect the health of the nation's 3.5 million agricultural workers and pesticide handlers by revising the Agency's Worker Protection Standard. These actions strengthen the requirement for training agricultural workers about the risks of pesticides, and, in some circumstances, reduce restrictions on crop advisors and other workers who enter fields or areas where pesticides have been applied. Today's actions respond to health concerns expressed by farmworker organizations that enhanced protections were needed, as well as concerns from a number of agricultural groups and states that exceptions to certain provisions of the l992 Worker Protection Standard regulation were needed to add more flexibility and avoid significant economic losses. "Our paramount objective in implementing the worker protection standard is to ensure that workers receive the information and training they need to protect their health and minimize their risk from pesticide exposure," said Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator. "The changes made final today advance that objective, while providing farmers and states with the flexibility they need to carry out their responsibilities under the Worker Protection Standard." EPA's Worker Protection Standard sets forth health and safety requirements covering approximately 3.5 million agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who may be exposed to pesticides through work on farms or in forests, greenhouses and nurseries. It was last revised in l992, and the revisions took full effect in January, l995. Based on proposals published for public comment in January, the final actions modify the l992 Worker Protection Standard as follows: * Training Requirements Beginning on Jan. l, l996, employers must provide brief pesticide safety information to untrained agricultural workers before they enter pesticide treated areas. Employers must be able to verify compliance with this requirement. Employers must also ensure that their workers have been fully trained in pesticide safety within five days after they begin work. This compares to the l992 Worker Protection Standard regulation which required worker training within l5 days, until Oct. 20, l997. After that date, the training was required within five days. * Exemption for Crop Advisors Crop advisors are trained specialists who advise farmers on appropriate pest control strategies. Under this exemption, certified or licensed crop advisors and persons under their direct supervision are exempt from the restrictions on entering areas where pesticides have been applied (if they have received pesticide safety training), while they are performing crop advisory tasks. A temporary grace period until May l, l996 is established which exempts all persons while performing crop advising tasks to allow time for crop advisors to acquire certification or licensing. EPA believes this action will further its goals of promoting widespread adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) techniques because crop advisors often play important roles in fostering IPM programs. * Exception for "Limited Contact" Activities Under this exception, workers are permitted to enter pesticide treated areas during restricted entry intervals in order to perform certain activities that would involve relatively little exposure, or "limited contact," with pesticide- treated surfaces. (Restricted entry intervals are periods of time after pesticide application when entry into treated areas by workers is restricted by the Worker Protection Standard.) Workers must be provided with personal protective equipment to minimize exposure and the time in the treated area must not exceed eight hours in any 24 hour period. In most cases, the time spent in the treated area is expected to be less than eight hours. * Exception for Irrigation Activities Under this exception, irrigation workers are permitted to enter pesticide treated areas during restricted entry intervals. Like the exemption for limited contact activities, workers must be provided with personal protective equipment to minimize exposure and the time in the treated area must not exceed eight hours in any 24 hour period. * Reduced Restricted Entry Intervals EPA has identified ll4 relatively low risk pesticide active ingredients as candidates for reduced restricted entry intervals. Products containing these active ingredients are eligible for reduced restricted entry intervals, from l2 hours to four hours. From LTrue@aol.com Fri Apr 28 04:31:29 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA23932 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 04:31:24 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA136558652; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 07:30:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 07:30:52 -0400 Message-Id: <950428073051_99370661@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: WPS Field Worker WPS contains no clothing or PPE requirements for workers entering treated areas after the expiration of an REI. On the other hand, WPS does require certain other actions, including making decontamination supplies available and posting of information, for 30 days after the REI expires (or after application if there should be no REI.) Lou True From WAGrowers@aol.com Fri Apr 28 07:20:30 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA25752 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 07:20:26 -0700 From: WAGrowers@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA176298788; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:19:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:19:48 -0400 Message-Id: <950428101947_99486216@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: WPS Tangent/Suit-Apron Wi... Judy: Thanks for doing this. From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Fri Apr 28 11:48:37 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA04407 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:48:35 -0700 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA06452 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:48:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:48:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199504281848.LAA06452@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (Gregorio Billikopf-Encina) Subject: Re: WPS Field Worker X-Mailer: >Is it mandatory for field workers to wear long sleeve shirts and long pants >when entering a field which has been treated with a pesticide, but the REI >has expired? > My understanding is that long sleeve shirts, long pants, socks, and a hat are suggested but do not constitute a legal requirement. Best wishes, Gregorio. ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From MNPPPest@aol.com Fri Apr 28 14:49:22 1995 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA11085 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 14:49:19 -0700 From: MNPPPest@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA152665726; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 17:48:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 17:48:47 -0400 Message-Id: <950428174841_99918813@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Compliance We use small blue flags to denote areas that have been treated with pesticides. All of the pesticide we are currently using require either oral or written warnings. We print out a log of all applications each morning which is read to groups throughout the nursery. Can we continue to use the blue flags as additional warning. From LTrue@aol.com Sat Apr 29 03:15:41 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id DAA22102 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 03:15:39 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA133020503; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 06:15:03 -0400 Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 06:15:03 -0400 Message-Id: <950429061502_100516908@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: WPS Compliance Use of blue flags on treated areas as additional warnings -- Nothing in WPS prohibits additional notifications to workers and this seems an effective and responsible measure to help workers stay out. On the other hand, be aware that such devices could not serve to satisfy the required posting of treated areas when labels call for BOTH oral warnings and field posting, or when there are any other product-specific posting requirements on the product label. In the first case, the WPS requirements for the sign and its placement must be met, and, in the second (as in the case of some fumigants) the label may require a special sign. Lou True