From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri Jun 2 07:33:02 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 HAA29917 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 07:33:00 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id KAA09550; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 10:32:46 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id RAA02164; Thu, 25 May 1995 17:41:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 17:33:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <950525160541_12186353@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 25 May 1995 NedONeill@aol.com wrote: > Apple orchards need to be mowed which takes much more than one hour and with > some chemicals having 72+ hour Rei that need to be sprayed weekly you do not > have enough time left to mow even though it can be foreseen. Sally replies: Does the mowing involve contact with treated surfaces? Sometimes the persons doing the mowing are mounted on a tractor -- if the treated surface does not brush against them or drip onto them, the entry is "no contact" and may be done during the REI without PPE and without time restriction. Sometimes applications are directed to the foliage/fruit on the orchard trees. If so, hand mowers may enter without PPE or time restriction if the treated foliage/fruit does not brush against them or drip onto them. Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From shenkm@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU Fri Jun 2 09:28:12 1995 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (root@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA02415 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 09:28:10 -0700 Received: from smo-1000-E by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28691; Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:29:41 PDT Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:29:40 PDT Message-Id: <9506021629.AA28691@BCC.ORST.EDU> X-Sender: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu 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: shenkm@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU (Myron Shenk) Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability Sally, I am surprised at your last statement that, "Sometimes applications are directed to the foliage/fruit on the orchard trees. If so, hand mowers may enter without PPE or time restriction if the treated foliage/fruit does not brush against them or drip onto them." Although I think that impermeable rubber boots and long pants would reduce contamination to a minimum, this statement assumes 100% deposition of the spray on the intended target: denying reality and Newton's Law! I hope my statement does not fule the fires for more restrictive REI's, because proper gear and common sense can/do minimuze the hazards and actual contamination. Speaking of exposure/contamination, in a recent posting the person refered to their experience in reviewing research data on this issue; implying that contamination and resulting poisoning are much more serious than we commonly assume. Where might we access data of this nature? Unfortunately, I did not save that posting and would like to follow up on this topic. Can someone help me? Thanks. Myron Shenk-Oregon State U. >On Thu, 25 May 1995 NedONeill@aol.com wrote: > >> Apple orchards need to be mowed which takes much more than one hour and with >> some chemicals having 72+ hour Rei that need to be sprayed weekly you do not >> have enough time left to mow even though it can be foreseen. > >Sally replies: > >Does the mowing involve contact with treated surfaces? Sometimes the >persons doing the mowing are mounted on a tractor -- if the treated surface >does not brush against them or drip onto them, the entry is "no contact" >and may be done during the REI without PPE and without time restriction. >Sometimes applications are directed to the foliage/fruit on the orchard >trees. If so, hand mowers may enter without PPE or time restriction if >the treated foliage/fruit does not brush against them or drip onto them. > >Sally > >-- >Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact >5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 > > > > From 73414.252@compuserve.com Mon Jun 5 04:33:46 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 EAA12946 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 04:33:44 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA10815; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 07:33:12 -0400 Date: 05 Jun 95 07:32:01 EDT From: Judith Houswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Undelayability and unforeseen: Early REI entry Message-ID: <950605113200_73414.252_DHS40-1@CompuServe.COM> There has been some discussion recently on early entry activities prior to the expiration of the REI. Mowing in the orchard is an example. Sally McDonald's explaination was correct and the original WPS was designed to permit some activities such as mowing an orchard where EPA was aware that exposure was very low and therefore so would risk concerns. One issue that seems to be overlooked is that many of the requirements in the WPS are INTERIM and not product specific. These include the REI, Double Notification, and PPE. They were interim because in the broad brush of the WPS, there was no way EPA could deal with all the product and crop specific issues that may be unique to certain products or crops. The interim requirements are SUPPOSED to be dealt with during reregistration or on a case-by-case basis. This process is supposed to be data driven with the data supplied primarily by the registrant but grower groups can also provide data such as what is supposed to happen with the ornamental flower industry. This process is not happening except in limited circumstances. Examples that I am involved with include a pecan reentry study in which exposure to the windrowers was monitored after the grove received the label maximum 10 applications of a foliar fungicide. The data showed that the exposure was very low and the risk calculations support reducing the REI for this particular product from 28 days to 24 hours. This is an example of how the system was supposed to work. I am currently assisting in having the double notification/posting requirement removed from a product's label. Again, product specific data and risk calculations are used. Unfortunately, in this case the Agency has overlooked that the requirement is interim and doesn't want to change the requirement. This involves exposure walking through a desiccated potato field. Double notification is no longer required on methyl parathion products based on GLP acute dermal toxicity study data. For individuals looking for reentry data that are publically available I would suggest contacting California's Worker Health and Safety Branch which has conducted worker studies and has HS reports that are publically available. From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Wed Jun 7 13:19:15 1995 Received: from hinc.hinc.hawaii.gov ([199.74.168.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA16702 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:19:12 -0700 Received: by hinc.hawaii.gov (5.0/SMI-4.1) id AA03299; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:11:24 -1000 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:11:23 -1000 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" To: wps forum Subject: Quality of worker training Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 1031 In a recent post, there were concerns about alarmist information transmitted during training. We encountered the opposite and equally disturbing situation. One of our staff chanced to sit in on a training session where the instructor had a cavalier attitude about the dangers of pesticides, downplaying the hazards. Furthermore, there were several inaccuracies given during the q and a period after the video program. We are trying to correct the errors by meeting with those involved. We are able to do this because we monitored the program. I wonder how much of this is out there unnoticed? As a result, is the program working? Are there suggestions for evaluation and improvement? Gary Fish had similar concernt in his post about certified applicators who were never tested yet qualified to train. Let me carry this one further. There are those who upon viewing of a video tape for handlers or those who saw a teleconference a few years back doing training. Gerald Kinro Hawaii Department of Agriculture From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Jun 7 14:39:18 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.96] (gia5mac16.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.96]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA20393 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:39:14 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:39:27 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: proposed regulatory changes in California Two large files that should be of particular interest to Californians have been added to the archive. Both contain final "staff drafts" describing the state regulatory changes that the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is developing to implement the WPS. Many thanks to Roy Rutz for providing the DPR files from which they were prepared. Printed copies of these documents were distributed to Agricultural Commissioners throughout California as attachments to letter WHS 95-7, dated 5/22/95. When final version is published in the California Notice Register this summer, an official public comment period will begin. The first of these files has the 5/15/95 draft text of changes in the California Code of Regulations that DPR will be proposing. It incorporates revisions based on (1) the five WPS modifications published by EPA in the 5/3/95 Federal Register, (2) EPA responses on 5/11/95 to four equivalency requests from California, and (3) editorial consensus of the DPR Worker Safety Branch, Enforcement Branch, and Legal Unit. Name of the file in the forum archive is "calreg95.dft" (size 92126 bytes). The second file contains the text of two support documents accompanying the draft (5/15/95) of regulatory changes proposed by DPR to implement the WPS. One is the draft notice of DPR's proposal, public hearings, and solicitation of comments on the regulatory revisions. The other document, the draft "initial statement of reasons," discusses in some detail the content and rationale for the proposed changes. Name in this file in the forum archive is "calsup95.dft" (size 53696 bytes). To obtain a copy of any file in the wps-forum archive, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM --Howard Rosenberg From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Wed Jun 7 14:56:47 1995 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (root@franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA21008 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:56:46 -0700 From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4) id OAA20507; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:55:51 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:55:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199506072155.OAA20507@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: dialogue from fresno Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor, Fresno. ... Amidst giving 1995 WPS safety instruction to 424 fieldworkers, trainer-foremen/FLCs, and applicators (20 sessions) -- and information to many through print and broadcast media, telephone, and 34 other talks -- I paused in Hilo, to inspect the May 3 WPS revisions. ... Returning from the Islands, I alerted a farm labor contractor of the WPS-required early-entry irrigator PPE (on a 100-degree day). She exclaimed "Coveralls! It's too #!*$*!# hot to wear coveralls!!" I assured her EPA based their decision on about 80 comments, at least one of which asked that the "early-entry irrigator coveralls requirement be dropped to lower heat stress." ... I advised her, and 3,745 others in my June newsletter, that as temperatures rise, coveralls and other early-entry PPE may elevate heat stress, even for young, well-rested (fully-hydrated) irrigators in top physical condition, depending on humidity, air movement, workload and other eleme! nts, and that "chemical resistent" gloves may make some early-entry irrigators' work more difficult, and take longer to do. ... Supervisors should consider longer frequent rest breaks, regular monitoring of early-entry irrigators, and, from the viewpoint of thermal comfort, coveralls made of light color, lightest weight cotton or cotton polyester fabrics. ... EPA's 301-page "Guidance Manual For Selecting Protective Clothing for Agricultural Pesticide Applications," suggests 6.7 ounces/square yard as a minimum weight for cotton coveralls in pesticide APPLICATION. Denim's about 7.1 ounces/square yard. Shirt-weight chambray and broadcloth, both 100 percent cotton fabrics (which could be worn by early-entry irrigators), are about 3.7 and 3.1 ounces/square yard, respectively. ... California's proposed coverall definition is "a one or TWO piece garment of close woven fabric or equivalent that covers the entire body except the head, hands, and feet." The WPS adds, however, that! coveralls "shall be loose-fitting." .... "Fresno Clear." From LTrue@aol.com Thu Jun 8 04:59:01 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 EAA05160 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 04:58:59 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA223032708; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 07:58:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 07:58:28 -0400 Message-Id: <950608075827_65284855@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: dialogue from fresno Steve Sutter's recent post discussing heat stress and PPE for irrigation serves to highlight a key reason for EPA's initial decision in WPS to severely limit entry to areas under REI's that requires PPE. It also supports what appears to be EPA's thinking in restricting the new exception for irrigation to those situations that "could not have been foreseen and cannot be delayed until after the expiration of the REI." In short, Steve's comments underline the wisdom, and apparently the regulatory requirement, that use of the exception to perform irrigation tasks be extraordinary and not a matter of routine. Lou True From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Thu Jun 8 05:24:27 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 FAA05577 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 05:24:25 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id IAA23019; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:24:07 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id IAA18445; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:25:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:16:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: dialogue from fresno To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, cefresno@ucdavis.edu In-Reply-To: <199506072155.OAA20507@franc.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I read with interest the recent posting from Fresno regarding the concerns about coveralls and chemical-resistant gloves hampering the work of irrigators. I am curious, however, as to what protective measures would be considered appropriate for entering a treated area that remains under a restricted-entry interval? Is Steve from Fresno implying that no PPE should be required because of heat stress concerns or is he implying that perhaps early entry to perform irrigation tasks should be avoided except under the most necessary conditions? Hopefully, that is the message being conveyed. EPA stated clearly in the Response To Comments document supporting the final rule in August, 1992, that routine early entry with PPE was not feasible. Steve from Fresno seems to be reaffirming those findings. -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Jun 12 17:35:41 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.96] (gia5mac16.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.96]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA21997 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 1995 17:35:38 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 17:35:53 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: request for early entry exception to harvest cantaloupe+squash Today's Federal Register [pp. 30872-30874] contains an EPA notice announcing receipt of and inviting public comments on an exception petition from the State of Delaware. The petition requests that from July 1 through September 15, 1995, workers be allowed to enter fields treated with chlorothalonil, before expiration of the 48-hour REI, to hand harvest cantaloupe and squash. Although this request is specific to Delaware, EPA's action on it may affect growers in other states as well. The full notice will soon be available in the wps-forum archive, probably no later than this Wednesday, under the file name "del-pet1.frn" (about 16k bytes). Below are _selected portions_. --Howard Rosenberg ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA's Worker Protection Standard (WPS) allows the Agency to grant exceptions to the entry restrictions contained in 40 CFR 170.112(e). The State of Delaware has petitioned the Agency to allow workers to enter chlorothalonil-treated cantaloupe and squash fields to perform hand labor harvesting before expiration of the 48-hour restricted entry interval (REI). The time period for this exception request is during the harvest season from July 1 through September 15, 1995 . . . . Comments, data, or evidence should be submitted on or before July 12, 1995. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: .... . . . Chlorothalonil is a wettable granular fungicide used to control Downey Mildew disease, and has been classified as a probable human (Category B2) carcinogen. Chlorothalonil has eye irritation concerns and other delayed health effects (kidney effects). The REI has been set for 48 hours. The pre-harvest interval (PHI) for melons and squash is at 0-days. The PHI is the time duration that must elapse, in days, from the last day of application to the first day that a crop can be harvested. The Registration Eligibility Document (RED) is scheduled for completion this year and changes to the REI and the PHI may occur. Summary of Delaware's Petition The State of Delaware has petitioned . . . to allow early entry by workers into chlorothalonil-treated cantaloupe and squash fields to perform hand labor harvesting 24 hours after the spray application. Delaware's petition states that if growers cannot harvest daily they will suffer substantial economic losses. . . . . cantaloupe and squash are under severe disease pressure from Downey mildew in Delaware, and if unchecked, it can destroy the crop. The practice is to apply chlorothalonil every 7 days where Downy mildew is a problem. Delaware contends that considerable fruit could be damaged or lost during a 48-hour REI, due to the inability to harvest mature crops. . . . . The State of Delaware is open to suggestions from the Agency for any means to mitigate possible eye hazards to harvest crews. Proposed Terms of Exception The State of Delaware has proposed the following protective measures: 1. No harvesting would be performed until 24 hours after application. 2. Growers harvesting cantaloupe and squash between 24 and 48 hours following the application of chlorothalonil would provide oral warnings to workers to avoid contacting their eyes with their hands and forearms or any clothing which may be in contact with the foliage during harvest. They would give this warning at the start of each workday. 3. Workers would be given instructions at the beginning of the workday to wash their hands, forearms, and faces after every 2 hours or at the conclusion of a period of picking if less than 2 hours. 4. To accommodate the increased use of water at the field decontamination site, the grower would provide 3 gallons of water or have running water available, as opposed to the recommended 1 gallon of water per worker. [[Page 30874]] The State of Delaware concludes that the costs of these measures are inconsequential when compared with the expected loss in the crop value without the exception. Comments and Information Solicited The Agency desires more information and is therefore, interested in receiving a full range of comments on this proposed exception . . . . In addition, the Agency requests comments on whether other States in which chlorothalonil is used on cantaloupe and squash would need a comparable exception. The States of Florida and Iowa have expressed a similar need for workers to enter chlorothalonil-treated cantaloupe and tomato fields to perform hand labor harvest before the expiration of the 48-hour REI. If Delaware's exception request is granted, the Agency may consider extending the exception beyond the State of Delaware, pending demonstration of need by other States. Interested parties have 30 days from the publication of this notice to comment. . . . . . ------------------------------------ From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jun 13 08:31:53 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.36] (gia3mac26.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.36]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA01138 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 08:31:50 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 08:31:50 -0700 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Delaware petition text The full text of the Delaware petition mentioned on the list yesterday is now available in the archives. The filename is del-pet1.frn. Dana Keil Mailing List Manager Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California at Berkeley From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Jun 13 22:08:15 1995 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA23548 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 22:08:13 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id BAA01283; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:07:42 -0400 Date: 14 Jun 95 01:02:19 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Chemical Resistance Message-ID: <950614050218_73507.555_HHB33-1@CompuServe.COM> I would like to open up a question to the forum. I am a little confused about what to consider chemical resistant in a particular situation. "Chemical resistant" means a material that allows no measurable movement of the pesticide through it during use. During seeding a granular formulation of disulfoton is applied. It is placed in hoppers and is deposited under the surface of the soil. The label requires chemical resistant footware. For a granular material, could leather boots be considered chemical resistant? It does not seem that a granular material would be able to pass through leather. I think that the boots should not have a tongue or laces that could trap granules and to avoid contact with the skin and clothing the coveralls (required by California regulations) should extend below the tops of the boots. The label also requires a chemical resistant apron to be worn during the loading operation. Could cloth coveralls similarly be considered chemical resistant during use of a granular material? The label also requires the use of waterproof gloves. This seems strange since no liquid of any kind is involved. The applicator must wear the gloves while driving the equipment. That must be uncomfortable, and in my opinion it provides no protection at that time but I do not see any way around it. In fact it seems that if the applicator wears the gloves during loading and working with the application equipment and then drives the tractor with the same gloves the steering wheel will become contaminated. This could lead to later exposure of drivers of the tractor during other operations. ****************************************************************** Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From 73414.252@compuserve.com Wed Jun 14 04:28:52 1995 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA26726 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:28:49 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA02430; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 07:28:17 -0400 Date: 14 Jun 95 07:26:20 EDT From: Judith Houswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: WPS and Interim requirements-Response Message-ID: <950614112620_73414.252_DHS48-1@CompuServe.COM> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: WPS and Interim requirements-Response Date: 12-Jun-95 at 07:11 From: Judith Houswirth, 73414,252 TO: Al French,internet:sfd425c7.032ailbox.econ.ag.gov Sorry for the long response time to Al French's request for more information concerning my message earlier this month on the fact that the REIs, double notification, and PPE requirements are interim. The chemical that I was referring to is TPTH. It was not the WPS that was imposing the 28 day REI, but the Special Review Branch. As far as I know, the registrants have successfully resisted and the 48 hour interim REI imposed by WPS for Tox I skin irritants is still on the label. TPTH is also a developmental toxicant. The reentry data supports reducing the REI to 24 hours and this is now under consideration by the Occupational and Residential Exposure Branch. Increases in REIs beyond the 48/72 hours occurs through the reregistration and special review process. WPS did not impose any New REIs longer than 48/72 hours. In some cases, WPS reduced the REIs that were previously greater than 72 hours. This involved the pesticides specifically listed in PR Notice 93-7. The REIs were reduced because no rational reason was found as to why the REIs were longer than 48/72 hours. When a rational (risk assessment) was found the longer REIs remained in force. We also appear to have been successful in removing the Double Notification requirement from ACCELERATE and DES-I-CATE products (endothall). Again it involved a risk assessment that demonstrated no risk. A final decision awaits the Tox Branch's concurrence on our NOEL. Steve Johnson intends to use the risk assessment approach for changing interim requirements to permanent requirements. What is occurring now is that REIs longer than 48/72 hours are being imposed through the reregistration process. These new REIs are available in the REDs as they become available. The new REIs are based on endpoints such as carcinogenicity or developmental toxicity. What is crazy about the system is that the Registrants often are not providing the Occupational and Residential Exposure Branch sufficient data to estimate field worker expsoure and therfore set reasonably accurate REIs based on data. Providing OREB with good information about field worker practices with specific crops is also essential. An example is hops. Sucker suppression using desiccants in the spring does not present any great postapplication potential and the REI can be minimal. Aphid control later in the season presents a completely different exposure scenario and a pesticide with the same toxicity as the desiccant would require a much longer REI. Making the decision makers aware of the differences in the crop is essential and the industry's responsibility. The WPS may be a blessing in disguise for many pesticides that are now being shown to be developmental toxicants or carcinogens as they undergo reregistration. The WPS does provide EPA some regulatory tools to provide acceptable risk. Without tools such as the REI or PPE, (such as has been removed for crop advisors or if early entry becomes commonplace) the Agency will feel it has no choice but to cancel registrants. Again, the burden belongs on registrants or grower groups to provide adequate information to the Agency. REIs that are incompatible with cultural practices are not a reasonable option. Either the REI is reduced through better information that justifies the reduction, alternatives are looked at such as field residue monitoring with immunoassay kits and a defined acceptable residue level like CDPR has done with methomyl, or the Agency is faced with cancelling the use on certain crops. Curt Lunchick From 73414.252@compuserve.com Wed Jun 14 04:52:15 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 EAA27128 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:52:13 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA20584; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 07:51:42 -0400 Date: 14 Jun 95 07:50:25 EDT From: Judith Houswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Chemical resistant Message-ID: <950614115024_73414.252_DHS48-2@CompuServe.COM> Bob Roach opened up a question concerning "chemical resistant" and its meaning concerning granular formulations. As Bob correctedly pointed out, chemical resistant is defined by WPS as allowing no measurable movement of the pesticide through the material during the period of use. Therefore the question was - Are leather boots chemical resistant for a granular formulation? The concern with leather boots (or gloves) was that the leather could trap pesticide in the leather and become available for contact with the user at a later time. With a soil incorporated granular pesticide application, this situation seems remote. This situation again comes back to the issue that I raised earlier this month concerning interim requirements for PPE, double notification, and REIs. Bob's situation is a excellent example of where a label modification is possible. The registrant of this product should consider amending the label for this particular use if indeed there is no likily exposure to the feet of the applicator because the granules are soil incorporated as part of the application process. The same situation holds true for the gloves. The WPS specifically allows the registrant to present acute toxicity information on the diluted spray to permit changes to applicator PPE. My question with the granular formulation that Bob mentions is what toxicity data are the PPE requirements based on. Was it the granular formulation or was it a more concentrated EC formulation? Many granular formulations are 10% a.i. or less and not readily absorbed dermally so that their acute dermal toxicity and skin irritation are likely Tox Category IV. If so, no gloves would be required (assuming no other tox endpoints like developmental toxicity) with supporting data. The Agency recognized that granular formulations may be much less toxic than other formulations of the same pesticide and therefore the PPE requirements could be reduced based on data. Same goes for microencapsulated formulations. Waterproof gloves are used as a term when the pesticide does not contain a solvent. Curt Lunchick From VINEGUY@aol.com Wed Jun 14 19:07:09 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 TAA16714 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 19:07:07 -0700 From: VINEGUY@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA297171995; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 22:06:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 22:06:35 -0400 Message-Id: <950614220634_71020573@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Quality of worker training I have also been concerned regarding WPS training. I am a certified pesticide applicator. Plus I have passed a state test to become a designated trainer. I have run into the problem that other certified applicators have shown little knowledge and lack of interest in the WPS guidelines. North Carolina as far as I know has 4 designated trainers who have passed the state test. They are also required to submit a resume, other credentials, list of training materials, and class description. Now I wonder who else is teaching out there. The North Carolina Dept. of Ag. is doing a great job of getting the information out and keeping us informed of changes and resources for training aids. They are also always ready to answer our questions. Andrew Spradley Biltmore Estate Vineyards From 73414.252@compuserve.com Fri Jun 16 04:15:37 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 EAA18683 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 04:15:35 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA17461; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 07:15:03 -0400 Date: 16 Jun 95 07:12:15 EDT From: Judith Houswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: crop advisor exemption and California reentry Message-ID: <950616111215_73414.252_DHS35-1@CompuServe.COM> I have a question concerning the WPS crop advisor exemption within California. The crop advisor exemption permits crop advisors or their designees to enter a treated field any time after application and prior to expiration of the Federal REI. Is California going to permit crop advisor entry into treated fields prior to expiration of the California reentry intervals? I assume that CDPR never permitted this type of entry prior to the new crop advisor exemption. Does anyone at CDPR have an answer or thoughts on this issue? Curt Lunchick Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Fri Jun 16 05:16:47 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA19650 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 05:16:45 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id IAA26270; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:12:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:12:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199506161212.IAA26270@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Tammy Gould) Subject: Transporting Workers in Employer Vehicles I have a question about the WPS provision regarding emergency assistance. The other day I was conducting a train-the-trainer program, and, during my review of the WPS provisions, I discussed that employers were to make transportation available to employees injured by pesticides. A labor contractor in the audience mentioned that there was a law (I'm assuming perhaps an OSHA law) which prohibits employers from driving potentially injured employees to medical treatment. He informed me he was required to call the available EMS. Is there such a law and does anyone have a citation for it? If there is such a prohibition, then I think that changes need to be made to the worker handbook and flipchart. Both show an employer driving an injured employee to the hospital. From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Jun 16 08:22:50 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 IAA21281 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:22:49 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:23:21 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:24:40 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73414.252@compuserve.com Subject: crop advisor exemption and California reentry -Reply In response to Curt' Question The current draft of the implementing regulations does include provision for the crop advisor exemption. Currently, California exempts crop advisors from the reentry provisions of the regulations. This exemption has been in place from the beginning of the worker protection program. The reference is Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6760(d). The list is considered examples, unlicensed persons doing similar tasks have also been included as a matter of practice. RoyR DPR From bcasey@nando.net Fri Jun 16 09:56:42 1995 Received: from nando.net (root@merlin.nando.net [152.52.2.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA23063 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 09:56:36 -0700 Received: from bcasey (grail703.nando.net) by nando.net (4.1/davel-nando/Jan95) id AA26955; Fri, 16 Jun 95 12:56:18 EDT X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <9506161256.AA13950@bcasey> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:56:13 -0500 From: "Bill Casey" To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Judy.Moore@rp.fr Subject: Crop Advisor Exemption Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed;boundary=part_AC072FEC0001F37400000007 --part_AC072FEC0001F37400000007 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: Inline I have a question regarding interpretation of the information provided by EPA on the crop advisor exemption. We are trying to determine what recommendations to make for our field development and sales force regarding possible training needs. Sales personnel often provide information which might be interpreted as crop advisory in nature. It appears that they are exempt from the requirements of the WPS (as long as they are not compensated for their advice by the "agricultural establishment" requesting the information) and that there is therefore no reason for them to get training as a crop advisor. The EPA revision states, "If a person is a certified or licensed crop advisor, they will be exempt from the pesticide safety training required for workers and handlers." It also states, "The crop advisor exemption applies only to individuals performing crop advising tasks in the treated area and only after application ends." If a certified crop advisor enters a treated area during application (and therefore his exemption doesn't apply), what does apply to him, since as a certified crop advisor he has already been exempted from the pesticide safety training required for workers and handlers? Bill Casey --part_AC072FEC0001F37400000007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: Inline William N. Casey Registration Projects Manager Regulatory Affairs Department Rh=F4ne-Poulenc Ag Company P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 E-Mail: Bill.Casey@RP.fr or bcasey@nando.net --part_AC072FEC0001F37400000007-- From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri Jun 16 11:27:21 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 LAA25809 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:27:19 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id OAA19734; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 14:26:59 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id OAA13741; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 14:28:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 14:19:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: crop advisor exemption and California reentry -Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I am confused! It has been my understanding that while crop advisors making a brief entry into treated areas during an REI were exempt from California entry restriction, crop advisors entering for longer periods were covered. The California regulations pertaining to crop advisors state: "Persons who have only limited and intermittent exposure to treated plants (such as management personnel, licensed pest control advisors, or federal, state, and country employees who need to enter treated field during reentry intervals only briefly to make an observation or to collect a sample) shall be exempt from the provisions of this article. The employer of such persons, however, must require plasma and red cell cholinesterase baseline determinations to be established for these specialized employees and verified every two years." Does California interpret scouting activities, such as cotton scouting, as a limited and intermittent exposure and a "brief" entry? I was fairly certain that California considered persons performing scouting activities for prolonged time periods as workers covered by the entry restrictions. Is this incorrect? On Fri, 16 Jun 1995 ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov wrote: > In response to Curt' Question > > The current draft of the implementing regulations does include provision > for the crop advisor exemption. Currently, California exempts crop > advisors from the reentry provisions of the regulations. This exemption > has been in place from the beginning of the worker protection program. > The reference is Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6760(d). > The list is considered examples, unlicensed persons doing similar tasks > have also been included as a matter of practice. > RoyR > DPR > -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From hn1984@handsnet.org Fri Jun 16 11:58:21 1995 Received: from sword.connectinc.com (sword.connectinc.com [192.216.44.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA26654 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:58:19 -0700 From: hn1984@handsnet.org Received: by sword.connectinc.com (4.0/Connect-Internet-Gateway) for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu id AA17169; Fri, 16 Jun 95 19:00:22 GMT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 19:00:22 GMT Message-Id: <9506161900.AA17169@sword.connectinc.com> Subject: Free WPS Training For Field Workers To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU As part of a national service program, Proteus, Inc. is hosting 14 AmeriCorps Members who will belp growers and labor contractors be in compliance with the new Federal Worker Protection Standard regulations. In the San Joaquin Valley of California AmeriCorps Members will train fifteen to twenty thousand farm workers in pesticide safety. This training takes approximately 45 minutes. All trained field workers are issued the EPA WPS verification card as proof that they have received the training. AmeriCorps Trainers are Bi-lingual and available to provide training at emplooyer job sites. There is no charge to either the employer or farm worker. Introductory sessions to familarize growers and contractors with the materials and teaching techniques are available. In the last 5 months over 7000 workers have received the training. A unique style for presenting information, through visuals and interactivities, has enhances the training sessions. The AmeriCorps Members were trained and certified by the University of California at Davis. Proteus, Inc. is a private non-profit organization that has been serving the Central Valley for over 27 years, primarily providing employment and training services to farmworkers and other disadvantaged persons of Kings, Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties. AmeriCorps trainers are located in the following Proteus offices: Porterville, Visalia, Hanford, Kerman, Sanger, and Dinuba. Agricultural employers who wish to provide the Pesticed Safety TRaining for their workers are encouraged to contact any of the following: Kings County Leticia Sanchez (209)582-9253 East Fresno County Mary Bautista (209)875-7146 West Fresno County Roberto Zaragoza (209)846-5331 Tulare County Visalia Dolore Flores (209)627-0100 Porterville Lupe Villegas (209)781-1852 Dinuba Gilbert Murillo (209)591-5701 Project Coordinator: Joan Cuadra at (209)733-5423 Sent: June 16, 1995 11:48 am PDT Item: R009gB3 From kaiser@ssnet.com Fri Jun 16 12:56:38 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 MAA28517 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:56:31 -0700 Received: by marlin.ssnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12680; Fri, 16 Jun 95 15:49:34 EDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:49:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Roger Kaiser To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Enforcement of WPS Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII We have had a few comments over the last year about enforcement of WPS rules. I don't think this is going to be the problem that some people have feared. In my DACA (Delmarva Agricultural Chemicals Assoc. Inc) newsletter this month they printed the following story. "ILLEGAL APPLICATION RESULTS IN PRISON TERM In Minnesota, a pesticide applicator who illegally applied chlorpyrifos (Dursban) to oats has been sentenced to five years in prison. In November, he was convicted of mail fraud, food adulteration and misuse of pesticides. He also must perform 200 hrs. of community service lectruing on the hazards of pesticides. The comtaminated oats were owned by General Mills and resulted in $150 million in damaged cereal (160 million boxes)" It does not take many reports such as this before people become highly motivated. They will try to find out about the rules, and they will try to obey them. Roger Kaiser kaiser@SSNET.COM From 75222.2562@compuserve.com Fri Jun 16 15:18:46 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 PAA03306 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:18:44 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA06987; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 18:18:13 -0400 Date: 16 Jun 95 18:15:36 EDT From: Doug Edwards <75222.2562@compuserve.com> To: Subject: COTTON SCOUT LABEL STATEMENT Message-ID: <950616221536_75222.2562_GHI120-1@CompuServe.COM> I have a question with regard to the crop advisor exemption. The label of Capture (R) by FMC specifically states that cotton scouts shall not enter treated areas for 7 days after application. Would the crop advisor exemption over rule this label statement? Doug Edwards Deputy Ag. Commissioner Fresno County, California From 73414.252@compuserve.com Mon Jun 19 04:42:29 1995 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA24989 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 04:42:27 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA16517; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 07:41:56 -0400 Date: 19 Jun 95 07:40:22 EDT From: Judith Houswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop Advisors and Label Exemptions Message-ID: <950619114022_73414.252_DHS26-1@CompuServe.COM> In response to Doug Edwards question regarding the specific provision on the Capture label prohibiting cotton scouts from reentering treated fields and does the WPS exemption override the label statement. The crop advisor exemption states in Section 170.204 (b)(1)(i) that if the crop advisor is certified (after May 1996) and makes a specific determination regarding PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to conduct the task safety the crop advisor is exempt from Section 170.232 Section 170.232 is Knowledge of the labeling and site-specific information. The handler employer (a crop advisor is considered a handler under WPS) no longer needs to know anything about the pesticide label, signal words, hazard precautions, first aid. Of course he must still make that specific determination regarding PPE, etc. The crop advisor is also exempt from decontamination provisions or providing emergency medical assistance. The preamble to the exemption also specifically mentions that crop advisors do not need to comply with knowledge of the label requirements. My read on this is that the WPS exemption for crop advisors overrides everything except the 45 minute handler trainer requirement or equivalent level of education. The thinking within EPA was that the education permits the crop advisor to know when and how it is safe to enter the treated field. For everyone's information, the exemption also overrides the crop advisor statement on the Ethyl Parathion label. I sure wouldn't want to be the one with the responsibility of determining when it is safe to enter a parathion treated corn field. California knows how predictable parathion residues were in the field. Curt Lunchick From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Mon Jun 19 08:48:34 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 IAA26900 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 08:48:30 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:46:38 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:46:23 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Transporting Workers in Employer Vehicles -Reply Tammy Gould asked if there was a law which prohibits employers from driving potentially injured employees to medical treatment or must they use emergency medical services (EMS) instead: Under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) a farm labor contractor (FLC) must have prior authorization from the Department of Labor (DOL) for each vehicle to be used to transport migrant or seasonal agricultural workers. Thus, if a FLC-employer lacked a transportation certification (e.g., did not normally transport workers) the FLC might incur a penalty and $500 statutory damages to the worker for unauthorized transportation. The farmer who engaged the FLC might also incur liability and statutory damages for the FLC's violation. A farm employer that is not a FLC is not required to have prior MSPA certification, but may not transport migrant or seasonal workers unless the vehicle complies with the same DOL or Department of Transportation safety and insurance standards. These standards are in excess of State vehicle inspection and insurance requirements for private vehicles. Thus, non-compliant transportation could implicate the farmer-employer with MSPA penalties and damages. I question whether calling EMS would fulfill the owner or employer's obligation to "make available to that person prompt transportation from the agricultural establishment." Unless EMS transportation would be WPS-acceptable, it seems clear the MSPA requirements are implicated in order to fulfill the WPS requirements. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 >I have a question about the WPS provision regarding< >emergency assistance.< >The other day I was conducting a train-the-trainer< >program, and, during my review of the WPS provisions, I< >discussed that employers were to make transportation< >available to employees injured by pesticides. A labor< >contractor in the audience mentioned that there was a< >law (I'm assuming perhaps an OSHA law) which prohibits< >employers from driving potentially injured employees to< >medical treatment. He informed me he was required to> >call the available EMS. Is there such a law and does< >anyone have a citation for it?< > >If there is such a prohibition, then I think that changes< >need to be made to the worker handbook and flipchart.< >Both show an employer driving an injured employee to the< >hospital.< From Sunap@aol.com Mon Jun 19 09:02:53 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 JAA27307 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 09:02:51 -0700 From: Sunap@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA030877739; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:02:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:02:19 -0400 Message-Id: <950619120217_73799971@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Subscription Un-subscribe me please to your very useful discussion list...I'm just not keeping up. THanks! From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Mon Jun 19 11:10:10 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 LAA02081 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:10:07 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id OAA07836; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:09:43 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id OAA25181; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:10:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:07:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Transporting Workers in Employer Vehicles -Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Al French questioned whether the WPS requirement that an employer "make emergency transportation available" to a worker or handler would be met by calling an emergency vehicle. The WPS How-To-Comply Manual (page 35) states: "Employers can "make transportation available" by: taking the employee to the emergency medical facility, OR calling an emergency vehicle, such as an ambulance, OR making sure the employee has a ride to the medical facility with someone else." EPA clearly intends that calling an emergency vehicle meets the employer's obligation under WPS emergency transportation requirement. -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Mon Jun 19 11:20:43 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 LAA02517 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:20:42 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:20:26 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:14:39 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Subject: Re: crop advisor exemption and California reentry -Reply -Reply In reference to the California crop advisor exemption in 3 CCR, 6760 (d), The answer is a definite yes, no, or it depends. You are technically correct. The exemption refers to "limited and intermittent exposure". In general, it was, (and is) assumed that the exposure to crop advisors meets this criteria. However, more recently (in the last few years) California has identified some concern during the risk characterization process with, specifically, cotton scouts that led to registrants putting specific language on certain product labeling to obtain the desired margin of safety in these cases. Absent this kind of specific labeling language, the exception would apply. Curt's answer to Fresno's question could be problematic for California. I thought crop advisors were exempted from the WPS but not from specific labeling requirements. Where crop advisors are specifically addressed by precise labeling language, that should apply. The amendments were intended to provide relief from the specific handling requirements for crop advisors contained in the WPS. California has never considered crop advisors to be either handlers or fieldworkers. Their work is different and in a class of its own. RoyR DPR From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Tue Jun 20 05:41:36 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA20148 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 05:41:34 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id IAA26315; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:36:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:36:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199506201236.IAA26315@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Tammy Gould) Subject: Crop Advisor Exemption and Conflicting Pesticide Labels I was alarmed to read a response from Curt Lunchick who advised Doug Edwards to ignore a label statement. >My read on this is that the WPS exemption for crop advisors overrides everything >except the 45 minute handler trainer requirement or equivalent level of >education. The thinking within EPA was that the education permits the crop >advisor to know when and how it is safe to enter the treated field. Where in the Worker Protection Standard does it say you can ignore label statements? Don't registrants have the right to be more restrictive than the WPS? From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Tue Jun 20 11:07:18 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 LAA25806 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:07:17 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:07:49 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:09:12 -0700 To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Holistic Interpretation of "Unforeseen" in Irrigator Exception The California Department of Pesticide Regulation recently responded to a question about the interpretation of the "not foreseeable" provision in the irrigator exception in the following manner. "The application of water to a field to incorporate the pesticide when required or allowed by pesticide product labeling (even if, as a fringe benefit, it provides for the water needs of the crop) is not an irrigation covered by this exception. The Department has long interpreted soil incorporation (both mechanical and watered in) as pesticide handling. It is specifically addressed in current (Title 3) section 6770. Since the application has not been concluded the restricted entry interval (REI) has not yet begun. The exception covers irrigation during the REI only. There are two types of irrigation; high contact and limited contact. High contact irrigation remains an activity that is limited to one hour per day. Limited contact irrigation is permitted for eight hours (time actually in the field) per day. To meet the criteria for limited contact the exposure must be both minimal and confined to the outer extremities (feet, legs below the knees, hands, and forearms). Substantial contact, even though limited to the outer extremities does not meet this criteria. Since this exception covers an activity that is performed during the REI, The appropriate personal protective equipment is that required by the pesticide product labeling for early entry or the generic PPE provided for in the exception. On the other hand, soil incorporation, as a handling activity, would require the PPE required on the pesticide product labeling for a handler. The requirement for unforeseeable should be considered in the overall sense. Could (or should) the events, including both moisture level and pest control, have been anticipated so that the grower could have avoided the problem situation in the first place? The whole purpose behind REIs is to limit work in the field during this time to minimize exposure to workers. Allowances are made for activities that involve no contact and those that are unavoidable. As the potential for exposure increases, the test for unavoidable becomes stricter. For short term activities (one hour) there is no express requirement, under the assumption that a person is unlikely to don the required PPE to do the task unless the task is necessary (at least at that moment). Under the limited contact irrigator exception the potential for a full day of exposure must be addressed. The test becomes; could this situation have been foreseen and something changed to avoid the problem? Lets assume the grower knew about the timing of the irrigation. Was the severity of the pest problem foreseen? Could a different pesticide, effective but with a shorter REI, have been used to avoid the problem? If the answer to these questions is *no*, the test for unforeseeable has been met and the grower can qualify for use of the exception." Original signed by James W. Wells, Director RoyR From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jun 20 11:12:10 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.101] (gia5mac21.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA25980 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:12:08 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:12:25 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: HOLISTICALLY "NOT FORESEEABLE" (from R. Rutz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message below from Roy Rutz got hung up in ListProc. Forwarding in entirety. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation responded to a question about the interpretation of the "not foreseeable" provision in the irrigator exception in the following manner. "The application of water to a field to incorporate the pesticide when required or allowed by pesticide product labeling (even if, as a fringe benefit, it provides for the water needs of the crop) is not an irrigation covered by this exception. The Department has long interpreted soil incorporation (both mechanical and watered in) as pesticide handling. It is specifically addressed in current Title 3, section 6770. Since the application has not yet been concluded the restricted entry interval (REI) has not yet begun. The exception covers irrigation during the REI only. There are two types of irrigation; high contact and limited contact. High contact irrigation remains an activity that is limited to one hour per day. Limited contact irrigation is permitted for eight hours (time actually in the field) per day. To meet the criteria for limited contact the exposure must be both minimal and confined to the outer extremities (feet, legs below the knees, hands, and forearms). Substantial contact, even though limited to the outer extremities does not meet this criteria. Since this exception covers an activity that is performed during the REI, The appropriate personal protective equipment is that required by the pesticide product labeling for early entry or the generic PPE provided for in the exception. On the other hand, soil incorporation, as a handling activity, would require the PPE required on the pesticide product labeling for a handler. The requirement for unforeseeable should be considered in the overall sense. Could (or should) the events, including both moisture level and pest control, have been anticipated so that the grower could have avoided the problem situation in the first place? The whole purpose behind REIs is to limit work in the field during this time to minimize exposure to workers. Allowances are made for activities that involve no contact and those that are unavoidable. As the potential for exposure increases, the test for unavoidable becomes stricter. For short term activities (one hour) there is no express requirement, under the assumption that a person is unlikely to don the required PPE to do the task unless the task is necessary (at least at that moment). Under the limited contact irrigator exception the potential for a full day of exposure must be addressed. The test becomes; could this situation have been foreseen and something changed to avoid the problem? Lets assume the grower knew about the timing of the irrigation. Was the severity of the pest problem foreseen? Could a different pesticide, effective but with a shorter REI, have been used to avoid the problem? If the answer to these questions is *no*, the test for unforeseeable has been met and the grower can qualify for use of the exception." Original signed by James W. Wells, Director RoyR From LTrue@aol.com Tue Jun 20 13:47:29 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 NAA01045 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:47:27 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA295101215; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:46:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:46:55 -0400 Message-Id: <950620164655_98772489@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Holistic Interpretation of "Unforeseen" in Irrigator Exception In a message dated 95-06-20 14:08:59 EDT, RoyR quoted a CDPR letter signed by Jim Wells, including the following: > The test becomes; could this situation >have been foreseen and something changed to avoid the problem? Lets >assume the grower knew about the timing of the irrigation. Was the >severity of the pest problem foreseen? Could a different pesticide, >effective but with a shorter REI, have been used to avoid the >problem? If >the answer to these questions is *no*, the test for unforeseeable has >been met and the grower can qualify for use of the exception." I believe this California interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the terms of the exception as published in the Federal Register by EPA. Nowhere does EPA state what CDPR seems to imply -- that the exception may be used if the overall "situation," including pest management practices triggering the REI, could not have been avoided without some disruption of desired schedules or practices. Rather it is the "need for the task" (clearly meaning the early-entry irrigation task alone) that "could not have been foreseen." I can understand why this straightforward interpretation might be distressing to some, since it seems to imply that there will be situations in which there are no pest management options that do not either interfere with foreseeable irrigation needs or which are not ideal from a pest management perspective. EPA seems to be saying that, in any such situations, extended early-entry for irrigation may not be undertaken under the exception (although the agricultural emergency exception might apply in some such cases). As it happens, this is consistent with the record underlying EPA's 1992 issuance of WPS, in which EPA estimated that there would be some losses of yield or quality as a result of the general prohibition of routine early entry. It would appear that EPA worded the exception to limit its use to situations in which plans to avoid the need for early entry are disrupted, as in the case of sudden, unalterable changes in the schedule for the availability of irrigation water. It seems to me that CDPR's interpretation simply contradicts the actual terms of exception. It also is inconsistent with the original EPA WPS philosophy, which appears to have been carried over into the irrigation exception, that growers have a responsibility manage their cultural practices so as to avoid the need for extended early entry whenever that is possible, even when that may entail some sacrifice. Lou True From 73507.555@compuserve.com Wed Jun 21 06:51:14 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 GAA00115 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 06:51:12 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA25035; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 09:50:41 -0400 Date: 21 Jun 95 09:45:19 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop Advisor Exemption Message-ID: <950621134519_73507.555_HHB70-1@CompuServe.COM> Now I am really confused. I never did understand exactly how the exemption relieved the crop advisor from compliance with the label. I guess that being exempted from 40 CFR 170.232 is supposed to handle that. But isn't there another section somewhere else in FIFRA that requires all to obey the label? By the way, it seems absurd to say that crop advisors do not have to know the label. They are the ones who need to know it most of all, and not only to make an informed choice about early entry PPE. How does an exemption from knowledge of the label allow them to not follow the label? Is ignorance of the law now a valid excuse? In California we have FAC Section 12973 which says you must obey the label. How are crop advisors going to be exempted from that? How can we say that the requirements for early entry PPE do not apply to crop advisors, except if the label specifically refers to them? Are we going to have a legislative change to the Food & Agricultural Code to effect this exemption? As I interpret current California law (FAC 12973) crop advisors still have to follow the label regardless of what this crazy exemption says. >Section 170.232 is Knowledge of the labeling and site-specific >information. The handler employer (a crop advisor is considered a >handler under WPS) no longer needs to know anything about the >pesticide label, signal words, hazard precautions, first aid. Of >course he must still make that specific determination regarding PPE, >etc. The crop advisor is also exempt from decontamination provisions >or providing emergency medical assistance. The preamble to the >exemption also specifically mentions that crop advisors do not >need to comply with knowledge of the label requirements. by: Curt >In reference to the California crop advisor exemption in 3 CCR, 6760 >(d), The answer is a definite yes, no, or it depends. >You are technically correct. The exemption refers to "limited and >intermittent exposure". In general, it was, (and is) assumed that >the exposure to crop advisors meets this criteria. However, more >recently (in the last few years) California has identified some >concern during the risk characterization process with, specifically, >cotton scouts that led to registrants putting specific language on >certain product labeling to obtain the desired margin of safety in >these cases. Absent this kind of specific labeling language, the >exception would apply. > >Curt's answer to Fresno's question could be problematic for >California. I thought crop advisors were exempted from the WPS but >not from specific labeling requirements. Where crop advisors are >specifically addressed by precise labeling language, that should >apply. The amendments were intended to provide relief from the >specific handling requirements for crop advisors contained in the >WPS. California has never considered crop advisors to be either >handlers or fieldworkers. Their work is different and in a class of >its own. > >RoyR From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Thu Jun 22 07:35:15 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 HAA22815 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 07:35:13 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id KAA02113; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:34:50 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id KAA28929; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:35:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:20:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Leather Boots Question To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <950621134519_73507.555_HHB70-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A question was raised recently about whether leather boots could be considered "chemical-resistant" when granular formulations of pesticides were being handled. The answer, given in the WPS Response To Comment document, is NO, leather boots cannot be considered "chemical resistant" under any circumstances. The RTC document states: "Because of the problems inherent in decontaminating nonchemical-resistant footwear, the Agency will continue to require the use of chemical-resistant footwear for pesticides in toxicity categories I and II (dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential). . . . The Agency is persuaded by the comments that handlers working away from their base of operations should not be required to wear chemical-resistant footwear in all cases. For physical safety, applicators using pesticides in rough terrain will be permitted to wear leather boots during the application if chemical-resistant boots of sufficient traction and durability are not obtainable. Early-entry workers in similar situations also may wear leather boots if chemical-resistant boots of sufficient traction and durability are not obtainable. These exceptions to the requirements of chemical-resistant footwear do not apply to handlers or workers in other use sites. Leather contaminated with pesticides cannot be cleaned adequately and employees would have a high risk of injury from wearing boots contaminated with highly toxic or concentrated materials." -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Fri Jun 23 04:51:37 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA06569 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 04:51:35 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id HAA27959; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:46:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:46:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199506231146.HAA27959@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Gary Fish) Subject: Leather Boots In reply to Sally's last message the clause below is moot. Tingley and Bata boot companies make chemical resistant footwear that is as good or better than any other leather work boot I have worn. They have vibram soles, the standard in work boot soles, and have rubberized uppers that are chemical resistant. For physical safety, applicators using pesticides in rough terrain will be permitted to wear leather boots during the application if chemical-resistant boots of sufficient traction and durability are not obtainable. Early-entry workers in similar situations also may wear leather boots if chemical-resistant boots of sufficient traction and durability are not obtainable. Gary Fish Maine Board of Pesticides Control Station 28 Augusta, ME 04333 afgfish@state.me.us From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri Jun 23 05:14:56 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 FAA06785 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:14:54 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id IAA15365; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:14:31 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id IAA05675; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:15:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:36:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Crop Advisor Exemption To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum In-Reply-To: <950621134519_73507.555_HHB70-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On 21 Jun 1995, Bob Roach wrote: > > Now I am really confused. I never did understand exactly how the > exemption relieved the crop advisor from compliance with the label. I > guess that being exempted from 40 CFR 170.232 is supposed to handle > that. But isn't there another section somewhere else in FIFRA that > requires all to obey the label? By the way, it seems absurd to say > that crop advisors do not have to know the label. They are the ones > who need to know it most of all, and not only to make an informed > choice about early entry PPE. How does an exemption from knowledge of > the label allow them to not follow the label? Is ignorance of the law > now a valid excuse? > > In California we have FAC Section 12973 which says you must obey the > label. How are crop advisors going to be exempted from that? How can > we say that the requirements for early entry PPE do not apply to crop > advisors, except if the label specifically refers to them? Are we > going to have a legislative change to the Food & Agricultural Code to > effect this exemption? As I interpret current California law (FAC > 12973) crop advisors still have to follow the label regardless of what > this crazy exemption says. > > Sally replies: In order to keep from placing the entire WPS on each ag-plant pesticide label, EPA decided to place a few WPS-related product-specific labeling requirements (handler and early entry PPE, REI's, and double notification statements) on labels and incorporate the remainder of the "generic" WPS requirements in a one-paragraph-fits-all labeling section (Ag Use Requirements box) that incorporates the WPS "by reference." However, the WPS contains exceptions to PPE when engineering controls are used, exceptions to the REI (short-term tasks, emergency tasks, handler tasks, etc.), and exceptions to the double notification statement (not required if no workers within 1/4 mile on foot). To accommodate these fairly complicated exceptions, EPA inserted a generic statement into the Ag Use Requirements box that states that the WPS contains exceptions to label statements about PPE, REI's, and double notification. This statement allows pesticide users, under WPS-specified conditions, to wear less-than-label-required handler PPE while using enclosed cabs or closed systems and to enter during an REI to perform certain tasks, even though the statements actually on the pesticide label state: "handlers must wear:" and "do not enter or allow workers to enter during the REI." By creating a broad exception in WPS for crop advisors, technically crop advisors WILL be in compliance with labeling requirements, even if they ignore the handler and early-entry PPE requirements and REI's. The question about whether crop advisors can also ignore crop- advisor-specific labeling statements is somewhat less clear. The answer may come down to where the CA-specific statements are located. If they are inside the Ag Use Requirements box or associated with the handler PPE requirements in the precautionary statements, I believe the broad WPS exemptions allows them to legally ignore the label-specific requirements. In addition, since the WPS specifically exempts CAs from knowledge of other labeling requirements, the implication is that they may ignore those also. The key is that FIFRA requires pesticide users to comply with pesticide labeling. However, the WPS, including all its exceptions, is (by reference) part of each label that contains an Ag Use Requirements box. Unless California laws and regulations are quite different from FIFRA, CAs can probably ignore PPE and REI requirements in California also. It would appear that EPA intentionally determined that CAs need not follow labeling statements even CA-specific labeling statements. The preamble to the CA exception states that CAs' knowledge and training allows them to determine for themselves and for their employees when treated areas are safe to enter and what, if any PPE and other protections are required. EPA specifically cites the example of entering areas treated by fumigants before the air concentration levels are reached as being up to the CAs discretion. The fumigant labels specifically state (in the Ag Use Requirements box) that entry by anyone is prohibited, including entry that would otherwise be permitted by the WPS. Since EPA is allowing CAs to ignore those explicit labeling instructions, the implication is that CAs may ignore other, equally explicit, labeling instructions. CAs will not be able to ascertain which labeling requirements were added due to the WPS and which were added due to product-specific concerns. Also note that just as California has added CA-specific entry restrictions for certain situations, EPA has established entry restrictions on certain products (especially products that require mechanical harvesting of cotton) due specifically to exposure concerns about cotton scouts. However, CAs are now exempt from those REI's as well as the generic WPS REI's. Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Fri Jun 23 08:00:13 1995 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA07917 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:00:11 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA27585; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:59:40 -0400 Date: 23 Jun 95 10:56:50 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Chemical Resistant Boots Message-ID: <950623145650_73507.555_HHB60-1@CompuServe.COM> Sally, Thank you for your answer. IT still does not seem quite clear to me that leather boots could not be considered chemical resistant in some use situations. Chemical resistance is not defined in terms of specific materials but rather in terms of the material's ability to withstand the pesticide during use. Could a granular formulation contaminate a leather boot? The response you cite seems to be directed at a situation where rubber or similar boots would be considered chemical resistant but for safety reasons may not be appropriate. I would like to hear some more opinions. I have not yet made up my mind. For the present, we are requiring the applicators to wear rubber boots. Bob Roach From afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Fri Jun 23 08:28:34 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA08486 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:28:31 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id LAA13594; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:23:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:23:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199506231523.LAA13594@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Gary Fish) Subject: Leather Boots I should also add to this not, that these boots are very comfortable and affordable. I've worn them applying granular and liquid pesticides. Granulars can stick to wet boots and cause significant contamination of the leather. I've seen it happen first hand. > >In reply to Sally's last message the clause below is moot. Tingley and Bata boot companies make chemical resistant footwear that is as good or better than any other leather work boot I have worn. They have vibram soles, the standard in work boot soles, and have rubberized uppers that are chemical resistant. > >For physical safety, applicators using pesticides in rough >terrain will be permitted to wear leather boots during the application if >chemical-resistant boots of sufficient traction and durability are not >obtainable. Early-entry workers in similar situations also may wear >leather boots if chemical-resistant boots of sufficient traction and >durability are not obtainable. > > Gary Fish Maine Board of Pesticides Control Station 28 Augusta, ME 04333 afgfish@state.me.us From 75222.2562@compuserve.com Wed Jun 28 11:13:15 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 LAA02392 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 11:13:13 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA06895; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 14:12:13 -0400 Date: 28 Jun 95 14:06:39 EDT From: Doug Edwards <75222.2562@compuserve.com> To: wps forum Subject: cotton scouts Message-ID: <950628180638_75222.2562_GHI136-1@CompuServe.COM> A few days ago I posted a question about the 7 day re-entry for cotton scouts on the capture-CA label. Below is a reply from EPA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- To: 75222.2562@compuserve.com Cc: FIRST.JOSHUA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Capture label requirements Dear Mr. Edwards: Your June 16th message on WPS Forum about the limitations on cotton scouts on the California-use-only Capture label was forwarded to me to answer. Here is what I found when I reviewed the label: The WPS Ag Use box is federal law, so any requirements in it reflect only U.S. law. States can augment U.S. law with their own restrictions. Because the limitation placed on cotton scouts is outside the WPS Ag Use box, it appears that California maintains special concerns about cotton scouts working around this pyrethroid. Setting this requirement is California's prerogative. Therefore, the WPS crop advisor exemption cannot overrule the label statement restricting cotton scouts from reentering until after 7 days. Please let me know if you have any other questions. I can be reached at (703) 305-7437 or on email. Take care. Joshua First, Env. Prot. Specialst Field Operations Division --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- I suppose that the lesson here is that there are WPS portions of the label and non-WPS portions of the label, and that the crop advisor exemption only applies to the non-WPS portion of the label. Doug Edwards Deputy Ag. Commissioner Fresno County, CA 75222,2562@Compuserve.com From shenkm@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU Thu Jun 29 09:42:34 1995 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (root@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA24420 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 1995 09:42:32 -0700 Received: from smo-1000-E by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09864; Thu, 29 Jun 95 09:44:03 PDT Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 09:44:03 PDT Message-Id: <9506291644.AA09864@BCC.ORST.EDU> X-Sender: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu 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: shenkm@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU (Myron Shenk) Subject: Re: cotton scouts Just to make sure that I understand the implications in Joshua First's reply to Doug Edwards, I need some help with his statement " Therefore, the WPS crop advisor exemption cannot overrule the label statement restricting cotton scouts from reentering until after 7 days." If the WPS crop advisor exemption cannot overrule the labels stated restrictions, would this not mean that there is no exemption? I thought the exemptions are a part of the WPS, which in essence does overrule the label. Am I in my usual state of confusion?? Thanks. Myron Shenk. >A few days ago I posted a question about the 7 day re-entry for cotton scouts on >the capture-CA label. Below is a reply from EPA. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ >------------------------------- > >To: 75222.2562@compuserve.com >Cc: FIRST.JOSHUA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV >Subject: Capture label requirements > > Dear Mr. Edwards: > > Your June 16th message on WPS Forum about the limitations on cotton > scouts on the California-use-only Capture label was forwarded to me to > answer. Here is what I found when I reviewed the label: The WPS Ag Use > box is federal law, so any requirements in it reflect only U.S. law. > States can augment U.S. law with their own restrictions. Because the > limitation placed on cotton scouts is outside the WPS Ag Use box, it > appears that California maintains special concerns about cotton scouts > working around this pyrethroid. Setting this requirement is California's > prerogative. > > Therefore, the WPS crop advisor exemption cannot overrule the label > statement restricting cotton scouts from reentering until after 7 days. > > Please let me know if you have any other questions. I can be reached at > (703) 305-7437 or on email. Take care. > > Joshua First, Env. Prot. Specialst > Field Operations Division >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ >----------------------------- > >I suppose that the lesson here is that there are WPS portions of the label and >non-WPS portions of the label, and that the crop advisor exemption only applies >to the non-WPS portion of the label. > >Doug Edwards >Deputy Ag. Commissioner >Fresno County, CA >75222,2562@Compuserve.com > > > From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Jun 30 07:22:43 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 HAA16416 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 07:22:40 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id KAA24445; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:21:35 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA804532366; Fri, 30 Jun 95 10:09:53 EST Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 10:09:53 EST Message-Id: <9505308045.AA804532366@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: FIRST.JOSHUA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV, KRONOPOLUS.CATHLEEN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re[2]: cotton scouts Myron and other FORUM readers: I was asked to forward this message concerning posted comments about California's more protection label statements on the Capture label. Judy Smith EPA/CT & OSB Please forward this to Mr. Shenk. Thanks. As Mr. Edwards points out, there are WPS and non-WPS parts to labels. The crop advisor exemption applies ONLY to federal law. This would be the WPS ag-use box. If states, such as California, wish to implement their own, more restrictive, crop advisor requirements, EPA is legally unable to bar them from doing so. The example of Capture is most instructive because the product in question is clearly marked California-use ONLY. The split between Federal & State language is quite evident. It would be helpful if someone can find a really confusing label where the split is not evident. Additionally, it would be very helpful if someone can determine how many states have restrictive measures for crop advisors which bypass WPS. If many do have them, then perhaps this is evidence that WPS went too far in granting the exemption, because states have determined that crop advisors are, in fact, at great risk from exposure to residues and have implemented restrictive measures as a result. If few states have such requirements, then the exemption will be quite significant, nationwide. Joshua First EPA/CT & OSB From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Jun 30 08:56:23 1995 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov ([134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA17633 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 08:56:21 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 08:56:42 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 08:52:15 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Cc: FIRST.JOSHUA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV, KRONOPOLUS.CATHLEEN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re[2]: cotton scouts -Reply I am responding to Mr. First's statements, below, regarding the Capture* label in California. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, it would be very helpful if someone can determine how many states have restrictive measures for crop advisors which bypass WPS. If many do have them, then perhaps this is evidence that WPS went too far in granting the exemption, because states have determined that crop advisors are, in fact, at great risk from exposure to residues and have implemented restrictive measures as a result. If few states have such requirements, then the exemption will be quite significant, nationwide. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< EPA did not go too far in granting the so called crop advisor "exemption". It went too far in defining crop advisors performing crop advisor tasks as handlers. California required the REI language for cotton scouts on the Capture* label, after recognizing that there may be a risk of exposure to the scouts while performing crop advisor tasks that exceed "limited and intermittent exposure to treated plants". California long ago recognized that persons performing crop advisor tasks while meeting some criteria, don't need to be treated as handlers in terms of training and PPE. Section 6760(d) in Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations recognizes that certain persons performing crop advisor tasks possess a level of knowledge and expertise, as a result of their job training or licensing or experience, face a lower risk of exposure than pesticide handlers: "Persons who have only limited and intermittent exposure to treated plants (such as management personnel, licensed pest control advisers, or federal, state, and county employees who need to enter treated fields during reentry intervals only briefly to make an observation or to collect a sample) shall be exempt from the provisions of this article." That is article 3. Field Worker Safety, where the safety requirements are spelled out for "employees who may enter a field when exposure to pesticides or their residues may be reasonably expected." The persons listed within 6760(d) are knowledgeable enough about the safety requirements in labelling and regulation that handler training and PPE should not be required for them. They are required by other California and federal laws and regulations to know the label regarding protective measures and the possible hazards. I don't think that the REI for cotton scouts on the Capture* California label is an admission "that crop advisors are, in fact, at great risk from exposure to residues". Just some in special circumstances. The label also contains less restrictive requirements, for REI and PPE, for persons performing job tasks that do not involve substantial contact with treated foliage. Check them out. Adolfo R. MarvinGallo, DPR "Some people hate BabyRuths 'cause the goobers get stuck in their teeth" From 73507.555@compuserve.com Fri Jun 30 16:25:44 1995 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA04240 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:25:42 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id TAA16464; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 19:25:11 -0400 Date: 30 Jun 95 19:21:57 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop Advisor Confusion Message-ID: <950630232156_73507.555_HHB36-1@CompuServe.COM> I am getting more and more confused over this exception. Now we have the opinion that if it is not in the agricultural use requirements box, (hereafter referred to as "the box") the exception does not apply. But crop advising is now "handling" and all labels have PPE requirements for "applicators and other handlers" outside of the AUR box. I do not know how we can make this in-the-box, out-of-the-box distinction in the first place. The WPS Part 156 caused changes to label PPE requirements both in and out of the box. There is no particular part of the label reserved for state's concerns. It is all the labeling and it is all federal law. Under the crop advisor exception, they are exempted from 40 CFR 170.240 which says that handlers shall use the clothing and PPE specified on the labeling. (This is also the section that allowed crop advisors to use early entry PPE instead of handler PPE.) I read that as exempting them from _everything._ If I am correct about that, the only way a state could address their particular concerns about crop advisor early entry would be to pass a state regulation. In California's case, they could amend CCR Section 6772, Restricted Entry Intervals, but for the fact that California is proposing to exempt crop advisors from the whole of Subchapter 3, Pesticide Worker Safety, which contains CCR Section 6772. Bob Roach P.S. - I looked at 40 CFR Part 156 to see where this box idea came from. Part 156 does not refer to any box, I think the U.S. EPA came up with this idea later. Part 156 does refer to the DIRECTIONS FOR USE section of labeling and the AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS _heading_ under that section. As for state's concerns, 156.206(d) says "each product shall bear the statement 'For any requirements specific to your State, consult the agency in your State responsible for pesticide regulation.' This statement shall be under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling." Checking a few labels I find that this statement is not being placed under the heading of AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. It is being placed at the beginning of the DIRECTIONS FOR USE section, before the AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS heading, which is now in a box. This statement implies that states can address their own particular concerns off the label and that the user should contact the state agency for details of state regulations. Can anyone at the U.S. EPA tell me where the box came from and what its purpose is? ----------- >To: 75222.2562@compuserve.com >Cc: FIRST.JOSHUA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV >Subject: Capture label requirements > > Dear Mr. Edwards: > > Your June 16th message on WPS Forum about the limitations on cotton > scouts on the California-use-only Capture label was forwarded to me to > answer. Here is what I found when I reviewed the label: The WPS Ag Use > box is federal law, so any requirements in it reflect only U.S. law. > States can augment U.S. law with their own restrictions. Because the > limitation placed on cotton scouts is outside the WPS Ag Use box, it > appears that California maintains special concerns about cotton scouts > working around this pyrethroid. Setting this requirement is California's > prerogative. > > Therefore, the WPS crop advisor exemption cannot overrule the label > statement restricting cotton scouts from reentering until after 7 days. > > Please let me know if you have any other questions. I can be reached at > (703) 305-7437 or on email. Take care. > > Joshua First, Env. Prot. Specialst > Field Operations Division >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Jun 30 17:11:00 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 RAA05084 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:10:59 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:12:00 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:08:19 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: Crop Advisor Confusion -Reply Bob, I too am still wondering where this box nobox consideration came from. It is my understanding that the whole label is to be followed when using a pesticide product. To determine if WPS requirements must be followed, it must be determined if the use is covered under the WPS. I had intended to review PARTS 156 and 170 to see if there was something I missed regarding following or disregarding boxed requirements when exemptions are dreamed-up, I mean, implemented. Maybe by next week..... I also thought that the crop advisor Exemption dealing with knowlede of labelling, 170.204(2)(b)(i), applied to exemption from knowledge of the whole label, boxes and all; 170.232. But in order to qualify for exemption from wearing label required PPE, the crop advisor must determine the appropriate PPE to wear while performing crop advisor tasks after the application is completed; ?early entry PPE?. I guess a crop advisor would have to initially consult the product label to make that determination and memorize the information and hope that future labelling doesn't advise more protective PPE. But I guess the exemption does not prohibit a crop advisor from being knowledgeable about the label. But it's at least somewhat consoling knowing I'm not the only one having a hard time keeping all of this straight; just when I think I have it figured out..... Oh well. Have a nice Fourth, Bob. Adolfo R. MarvinGallo, DPR "Pass the Snickers, when they move too slow"