From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed Mar 1 05:38:36 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 FAA16212 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 05:38:36 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id IAA07179; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 08:37:35 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id IAA21958; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 08:37:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 08:31:28 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: WPS and Greenhouse Labeled Products To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII EPA's Interpretive Guidance Workgroup (IGW) in its answer to a question as to whether retail establishments are covered by the WPS states: "In addition, EPA expects that when treatment in such establishments does occur, it will commonly involve pesticides that are unlikely to bear WPS labeling. As a result, EPA expects this question [whether retail establishments are covered by the WPS] to arise only rarely in practice." It would appear that EPA's IGW has already addressed the question of whether retail establishments may use nonWPS labelled pesticide products. From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed Mar 1 06:50:55 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA16649 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 06:50:54 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 01 Mar 1995 09:46:26 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 09:45:31 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Greenhouse Labels - Response Formerly received today on Forum: EPA's Interpretive Guidance Workgroup (IGW) in its answer to a question as to whether retail establishments are covered by the WPS states:"In addition, EPA expects that when treatment in such establishments does occur, it will commonly involve pesticides that are unlikely to bear WPS labeling. As a result, EPA expects this question [whether retail establishments are covered by the WPS] to arise only rarely in practice." It would appear that EPA's IGW has already addressed the question of whether retail establishments may use nonWPS labelled pesticide products. ------------------------------------------------------------- Reply: Yes, as I and you have pointed out, the WPS IGW has addressed the inclusion of retail establishments under the WPS, but they DID NOT specifically address whether non-greenhouse labeled products could be legally used inside greenhouses. The IGW response did not take that extra step to fully answer the question. That is why I have provided a further clarification. Donald Baumgartner EPA Region 5 From buduff@cs.wisc.edu Wed Mar 1 07:40:40 1995 Received: from picard.cs.wisc.edu (picard.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.45.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA17116 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 07:40:39 -0800 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 09:40:36 -0600 Message-Id: <9503011540.AA07975@picard.cs.wisc.edu> Received: from F180-151.net.wisc.edu by picard.cs.wisc.edu; Wed, 1 Mar 95 09:40:36 -0600 X-Sender: buduff@picard.cs.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: buduff@cs.wisc.edu (Benjamin Higley) Subject: Re: WPS Coverage X-Mailer: If anyone can help. I need to get the instructions on how to delete this mailbox out of this, and put it onto a new mailbox. Please send me instructions to gemplers.inc@msn.fullfeed.com Thank you. Sorry for the inconvience. I have since lost how to do it. From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed Mar 1 09:09:47 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 JAA18858 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 09:09:45 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 01 Mar 1995 09:08:06 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 09:08:30 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@epamail.epa.gov Subject: RE: Greenhouse issues clarified by EPA region 5 RE: Greenhouse issues clarified by EPA region 5 Is this a region 5 answer or does this reflect the position on the Agency as a whole? Is anyone from the national headquarters out there listening? This is of some importance to States. There should be a consistent national policy on this. Is anyone committed to formally asking the question? California has had a policy on greenhouse use of pesticides outlined in a letter to our county agricultural commissioners dated September 12, 1978. It is substantially different than what was stated by region 5. We recognized that we now have a problem with our interpretation of WHAT was a greenhouse, but now it seems that there may be considerable problem with the policy itself. If I understand it correctly, the region 5 clarification seems to be saying that the word GREENHOUSE must appear on the product label before the product can be used in an enclosed structure (used for commercial or research production of an agricultural plant) or space of sufficient size to permit worker entry, that is enclosed with a non porous covering (def. of greenhouse). Does the specific commodity or thing inside the greenhouse also have to be listed? Is there a difference between food and non-food commodities? Greenhouse operators are already impacted by label limitations created , in part, by the fact they are seen as a "minor crop" use. For example the application of products by thermal fogs, which can be a very low handler exposure method of application, is limited by dilution statements on many labels. I suspect that the application of the region 5 clarification could exacerbate the problem for greenhouse operators. I am guessing that there are going to be many commonly greenhouse used products that suddenly will be found to no longer be legal under this new policy. What problems were created by the old policy? Was there a change for the sake of change or are we really trying to solve some problem? RoyR CDPR From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Mar 1 12:37:52 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.98] (gia5mac18.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.98]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA25613 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:37:50 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:38:28 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: interpretive Q & A document Bob Roach poses several interesting questions in his post yesterday on WPS coverage of retail nurseries. Knowledgable folks (three so far) are already addressing the substantive issues about greenhouses, nurseries, retail establishments, agricultural establishment, and the use of greenhouse vs. non-greenhouse labeled products. Let me take up the relatively mundane issue Bob raised: >What is the "IGW October 1994 Q&A document?" Is this >available in the archive? I would like to refer to >question 14.16 as suggested. (a) I'd bet a nickel it's the Interpretative Policy Workgroup's Q & A guidance that John Impson mentioned in his 11/29/94 post. (b) No, it's not in the archive. Right after John's post, I spoke and wrote to a few people at EPA in efforts to obtain the document for easy access through the archive. The latest response was that EPA Region 9 had already asked for it in electronic form and that it would be provided for Forum participants upon completion. Haven't received it yet. Still more than willing to put it in the system. Howard From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed Mar 1 14:08:34 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 OAA28505 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 14:08:33 -0800 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id RAA10508; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:07:19 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794106365; Wed, 01 Mar 95 16:56:27 EST Date: Wed, 01 Mar 95 16:56:27 EST Message-Id: <9502017941.AA794106365@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: interpretive Q&A document/ IGW Answer 14.16 I'll add my comments to Howard's comments. Yes...it is the 1994 Interpretative Guidance Workgroup (IWG) Document. And, I have sent an inquiry into OECA/EPA to get an electronic file or paper sent to me. If I am successful at accessing this document in an electronic format, Howard will get a copy to post for the FORUM archives. I was able to borrow a document and here is Q 14.16 and the IGW's response. 14.16 retail establishments, coverage by WPS Q. Does WPS cover establishments engaged in the retail ssale of plants, including retail nurseries, retail greenhouses, and other commercial establishments in which plants are for sale? A. Yes, whenever pesticides bearing WPS labelling are employed for WPS-covered uses in such establishments. EPA addressed this in the record of the WPS rule development. However, there have been some questions about the WPS definitions of greenhouses and nurseries as any "peration engaged in the .... production of agricultural plants." It has been argued that maintenance of a plant for sale is distinct from production and that, therefore, retail operations are not subject to WPS. This is not the position taken by teh Agency for purposes of the WPS. In developing the rule, EPA concluded it would not be useful to define production in such a way as to exclude maintenance of plants, whether or not they are being held for sale. In part, this is because such a distinction is difficult to make. For example, while dormant, plants in a "production" orchard are not then growing, while pottend plants "held" for retail sale surely are. It was in recognition of this that EPA defined agricultural plants in the WPS as "any plant grown or maintained for commercial or research purposes." In effect, EPA defined production to include maintenance of living plants. Moreover, when WPS-labeled pesticides are used in such maintenance, the types of worker and handler exposure to them are no different than in non-retail establishments. Therefore, there was no reason to exclude retail establishments on the basis of potential occupational risk. On the other hand, since most purely retail establishments may be expected to hold plants only briefly, pesticide use may be infrequent. In addition, EPA expects that when treatment in such establishments does occur, it will commonly involve pesticides that are unlikely to bear WPS labeling. As a result, EPA expects this question to arise only rarely in practice. This interpretation is for puruposes of the WPS and is not intended to impact other regulations, such as the Certification and Training regulations. (November 17, 1993) Also recommend returning to the Federal Register (Friday July 8, 1988) and scanning the "applicability" section, starting on p. 25975. Hope that this IWG posting is helpful. Judy Smith US EPA Certification, Training and Occupational Safety From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed Mar 1 20:37:18 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA08858 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:37:16 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 01 Mar 1995 17:24:43 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 17:23:02 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: interpretive Q & A document -Reply In response to Howard's recent message regarding the accessibility of the WPS Intepretive Guidance Workgoup Question and Answer document: I sympathize with your frustration in not yet having an electronic copy of the WPS IGW Q&A document. I too wish it were more readily available to all extension agents and the regulated community. We in Region 5 rountinely assure that all of our CES agents receive nearly everything which we send to the Departments of Agriculture. I understand that this is not the policy in some other States. If nothing else, people can contact their State Agriculture WPS contact or their EPA Region office for a hard copy. Based upon a WPS conference call the Regions held today with EPA HQ, the projection for sending out a hard copy of the latest 30 or so new Q&As finalized by the WPS IGW will be out in mid March. Later, these will be incorporated into the original IGW Q&A document. Donald Baumgartner EPA Region 5 From LTrue@aol.com Thu Mar 2 07:21:05 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA16543 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 07:21:05 -0800 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA051867633; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:20:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:20:33 -0500 Message-Id: <950302102033_36979014@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: RE: Greenhouse issues cla... This is a reply to the Region 5 interpretation of greenhouse use of pesticides not explicitly labelled for use in greenhouses. In my years in the Office of Pesticide Programs, this issue arose several times. On each occasion that I was involved in, OPP officials advised that such use was not misuse, provided there was nothing on the label to suggest that use in enclosed spaces was prohibited. For example, if the label said the product could be used on an ornamental, without qualification of the indoor or outdoor location of the plant, it could be used in greenhouses on the same plant. I don't recall whether such a finding was committed to paper, but suggest that Region 5 explore the question with Jeff Kempter and Steve Morrill of the Registration Division. Lou True From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Thu Mar 2 10:13:40 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 KAA20179 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:13:38 -0800 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id NAA16729; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:13:07 -0500 Date: 02 Mar 95 13:11:58 EST From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: HowardR Subject: WPS Posting/Fact Sheets Message-ID: <950302181157_71154.2454_DHQ78-1@CompuServe.COM> Hi, I am new to WPS-Forum, so be gentle. I am Dr. Earl Tryon, now a private agricultural consultant. My phone number in Marietta, GA is 404/9925773. I am using my wife's Computerserve address of 71154,2454@compuserve.com I am working with EPA in Washington, D.C. (I worked their several years ago) and with Region IV EPA in Atlanta (geographically close!). In addition I am working with GA and FL state WPS regulatory offices and the Extension Service in Florida (I was a county agent in FL many years ago). Regulatory product: We have identified and collected from the respective manufacturers 100% of the pesticide product labels for all products with EPA approved WPS information. This is a national list - and is and will continue to change. Each product is having its WPS inforput on a single side of one page to be used as a posting tool or reference. This will be available in both computer form (we have software and it is in ASCII files) and in print. The Floirda Extension Service will put the WPS Posting Sheets on their statewide network. EPA Region IV wants a system to suppor their state counter-parts, etc. The ag world of dealers, farmers, workers, workers wives and trainers - llooooovvveee this concept. FL Dept of Ag will help us do them in Spanish and both the English and Spanish versions will be avialable by May 1995. The spanish version - as approved by a WPS professional - IS A MUST! The botton-line: I am looking for WPS professionals that want input into the Posting product concept and willing to work with me and EPA to define a "useful" and "regulatory" acceptable product. EPA has made no promisses - but I am pushing to get a Task Force to define an acceptable WPS Posting Product and then get it into the proper regulatory hands at a cost of 1/10 it would take to do it themselves. The PR implications to state agencies being able to provide WPS Posting or Fact Sheets is very positive. I want input from memebrs of this forum. Does anyone want to test these out once we get into an EPA approved trial phase? Your thoughts? I can FAX you examples if you give me a FAX number. Talk about unlimited marketability - several manufacturers have suggested we laminate these posting sheets and then make them available to growers. far more useful than a hat, etc. Dr. Earl Tryon 4340 Sprucebough Dr. Marietta, GA 30062 404/992-5773 FAX 404/518-4134 From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Thu Mar 2 10:25:29 1995 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA20728 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:25:29 -0800 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id NAA12518; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:24:58 -0500 Date: 02 Mar 95 13:21:44 EST From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: HowardR Subject: WPS Safety Sheet Message-ID: <950302182144_71154.2454_DHQ78-2@CompuServe.COM> Hi again, I have a lot going on! From the complete list of EPA approved pesticide labels with approved WPS info we are creating WPS Safety Sheets. A WPS Safety Sheet will have 100% of the information on a pesticide label except "Directions for Use". This not only includes the WPS as it appears on the label, but all product specific safety information. This is a much better alternative to the MSDS and the label on the container. Who lets a worker near a pesticide product? (I fired those that got near my storage shed). I could go on for hours about how inappropriate the OSHA MSDS (Material Safety Date Sheet) is for any agricultural business, farm, etc. I am working with EPA (hdqts & Region IV) to develop a regulatory acceptable product. This WPS Safety Sheet is great for training the worker, providing to the doctor or poison control center, and anything anyone ever thought an MSDS should be used for. This product is both an information tool as well as "keep the lawyers away" tool. Does anyone on the form want to see examples, provide me feedback starte a dialog, etc. Dr. Earl H. Tryon 4340 Sprucebough Dr. Marietta, GA 30062 PH 404/992-5773 FAX 404/518-4134 From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Thu Mar 2 11:00:08 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA21885 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 11:00:06 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 02 Mar 1995 14:00:28 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 11:16:08 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Greenhouse restrictions If a retail store that sells plants is considered to be a greenhouse, it should be noted that the applicable restricted-entry requirements apply to "any person" and not just to "workers." (Sec. 170.111(c)(1) Pg. 38153). Thus, unless such a store is permitted to use products without WPS labeling, it appears that customers and personnel other than "appropriatley trained and equipped pesticide handlers" would be implicated. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Thu Mar 2 11:29:46 1995 Received: from exnet.iastate.edu (exnet.iastate.edu [129.186.107.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA22970 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 11:29:45 -0800 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA06891; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:30:55 -0600 Message-Id: <9503021930.AA06891@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 13:29:37 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) Subject: Videoconference X-Mailer: A videconference to assist growers in meeting the requirements of the Worker Protection Standard is scheduled for March 14, 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. central standard time. There is no fee to view this program. The satellite coordinates are Telstar 302, channel 18 horizontal. This program is sponsored by Iowa State University Extension and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship through a grant from the U.S. EPA. From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Thu Mar 2 12:48:39 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA25190 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:48:38 -0800 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA11436 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 1995 15:14:35 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 15:14:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199502282314.PAA11436@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (Gregorio Billikopf-Encina) Subject: Re: clarification of WPS X-Mailer: Regarding Ron Ackerman's question and Kay's response: Does this mean that dairy farmers are exempt from WPS? Gregorio > Ron Ackerman will probably get a half-dozen responses to his question > about whether operations that use pesticides on razing land or pasture > are covered by the WPS. That's because this is such a straightforward > answer that we'll all want to jump on it. > The WPS specifically exempts pesticide applications for pasture and > rangeland use. If you don't harvest the hay, then the WPS doesn't apply. > The WPS also specifically exempts pesticide applications on livestock or > other animals, or in or about animal premises. > > Kay Rudolph > US-EPA San Francisco, Region 9 > > > *************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 9535 gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (209) 525-665 (209) 525-4969 FAX *************************************************** From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Mar 2 12:52:14 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 MAA25377 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:52:13 -0800 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA01978; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:51:00 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794188190; Thu, 02 Mar 95 15:45:34 EST Date: Thu, 02 Mar 95 15:45:34 EST Message-Id: <9502027941.AA794188190@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Videoconference Wendy: Thanks for the posting concerning the conference. Can you provide a few more details? When was this conference held? Is this an extract from the program done at Texas A&M about a year ago, or a tape from a more recent program? Can you post a telephone number where I may call you about this? Thanks! Judy Smith US EPA/Washington CT&OSB From PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Thu Mar 2 13:16:23 1995 Received: from ucipm.ucdavis.edu (prime.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA26004 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:16:09 -0800 From: PMARER@ucipm.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: <199503022116.NAA26004@are.Berkeley.EDU> Received: (from user PMARER) by ucipm.ucdavis.edu; 02 Mar 95 13:16:15 PST To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: 02 Mar 95 13:16:15 PST Here is the latest schedule of University of California Train-the-Trainer workshops for qualifying trainers under the Worker Protection Standard. Workshops are filling fast so early registration is suggested. Those listed below as "CLOSED" are filled. Every effort is being made to accommodate as many people as possible in locations throughout California. Other programs are being planned, including Spanish language programs for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers. For information about these programs contact Pat Marer at (916)752-7694. To register for one of the workshops, call (916)752-7691. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROJECT Train-The-Trainer Workshops March, April, May CLOSED March 9 - Fresno 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) CLOSED March 10 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED March 10 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) March 21 - Lakeport 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) March 22 - Lakeport 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) March 22 - Lakeport 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) March 23 - Modesto 8:30am-4pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $20 (Spanish) (contact Gregory Billikopf at (209)525-6654 to register) CLOSED March 29 - Salinas 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) CLOSED March 30 - Salinas 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) CLOSED March 30 - Salinas 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) CLOSED April 6 - Stockton 7:30am-4pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $15 (Spanish) (contact Gregory Billikopf at (209)525-6654 to register) April 26 - Bakersfield 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) April 27 - Bakersfield 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) April 27 - Bakersfield 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) April 28 - Fresno 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) April 28 - Fresno 1pm-5pm: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) May 23 - Ventura 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) May 24 - Ventura 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) May 25 - San Luis Obispo 8am-5pm: Workshop for trainers of handlers and fieldworkers - $100 (English) May 26 - San Luis Obispo 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (English) May 26 - San Luis Obispo 8am-noon: Workshop for trainers of fieldworkers - $40 (Spanish) From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Mar 2 14:04:17 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 OAA27836 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:04:16 -0800 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id RAA03826; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:03:09 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794192518; Thu, 02 Mar 95 16:44:30 EST Date: Thu, 02 Mar 95 16:44:30 EST Message-Id: <9502027941.AA794192518@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Greenhouse restrictions From the CFR ...the agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or to remain the area specified in column B of Table 1 (Table 1 addresses treated areas plus added boundary space (100 ft/25 ft) for aerial, pressurized, overhead direction...types of application that workers are prohibited from entering during applications.) Clarification: During application, employers must prohibit ALL NONHANDLER persons from entering the area under treatment. At the end of application, the REI applies only to workers. Here is an interpretative guidance/clarification concerning product use: You MAY USE a non-WPS product (i.e., homeowner product) in a greenhouse/nursery IF the label ALLOWS this. Read the product label CAREFULLY!! Phrases, such as "not for commercial use", would PROHIBIT use of a product that bears this statement (or similar prohibitive phrases) on the product labelling for a commercial nursery or greenhouse. Check the entire product label CAREFULLY to determine if there are other label statements that would prohibit the use of a non-WPS (i.e., homeowner) product. Other Use/Site Issues: IWG is "in deliberations" on the issue of whether the label must state explicitly "in greenhouses" (site) for a specific crop when the label permits product use on the same crop in a field (site). The outcome will be posted on Forum as soon as I know the resolution of the issue. Hope that this is helpful information. Judy Smith US EPA/Washington CT&OSB 703-305-7371 From LTrue@aol.com Thu Mar 2 15:52:02 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA01180 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:52:00 -0800 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA147468289; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 18:51:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 18:51:29 -0500 Message-Id: <950302185127_37436069@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Greenhouse restrictions Response to Judy Smith's comment: Al French is correct that, at least for certain application techniques, any person, not just handler may need to be excluded, and not just during application. (Note, the heading on col. B of Table 2 in the rule on p. 38154 is actually an error. It was not corrected in the FR because it contradicts the text. It should not be limited in all cases to workers. The error was fixed in the corresponding section of the How-to-Comply manual -- p. 55.) From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Fri Mar 3 09:25:17 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 JAA13732 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 09:25:16 -0800 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id MAA28826; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 12:24:44 -0500 Date: 03 Mar 95 12:23:14 EST From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: ddd Subject: Jan/Feb 1995 WPS Fed Reg References Message-ID: <950303172314_71154.2454_DHQ24-1@CompuServe.COM> I need dates or issue numbers of any Fed Reg issues that carries 1995 new or revised WPS regs or proposed regs. I am specifically interested the Reg notice detailing the new Bacillus thruingiensis decrease in REI from 12 hrs to 4 hrs - I think! Thanks From HORTON.JANE@epamail.epa.gov Fri Mar 3 10:56:51 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA16871 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 10:56:50 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HNP967GJ0W8X29AV@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Fri, 03 Mar 1995 13:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #8611) id <01HNP969USQO8Y6GZG@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Fri, 03 Mar 1995 13:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 13:37:41 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Fri, 03 Mar 1995 13:37:41 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 13:32:00 -0500 (EST) From: JANE HORTON 404-347-3222 Subject: RE: Jan/Feb 1995 WPS Fed Reg References To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HNP96D176O8Y6GZG@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 13:37:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;14733130305991/2579365@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The five proposed changes to the WPS appeared simultaneously on January 11, 1995. FR Vol. 60, No. 7, pp 2820-2852. The proposal to reduce Restricted Entry Intervals for low risk pesticides, including Bacillus sp. is found at page 2848 in th above referenced Federal Register notice. From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Sat Mar 4 06:12:17 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 GAA02125 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 1995 06:12:16 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id JAA06100; Sat, 4 Mar 1995 09:11:45 -0500 Date: 04 Mar 95 09:10:59 EST From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: dd Subject: Posting Sheet Project Status - clearify issues! Message-ID: <950304141058_71154.2454_DHQ38-1@CompuServe.COM> Three facts about the WPS Posting/Fact Sheet and WPS Safety Sheet project . 1. By May 1995, I am working with people that will have completed the production of WPS Posting Sheets and companion Safety Sheets for nearly 2000 agricultural pesticides with EPA approved WPS information. The 2000 products represents a list built from a EPA list and from up-dated information from the manufacturers. As a side-bar, excuse me O.J., we have a definitive list of WPS approved pesticides. 2. We have no official or even unofficial agreement with EPA or any state regulatory agency at this time. We have been and will continue to work with EPA and interested state regulatory agencies (APCO) and NASDA, as well as the USDA Exension Service and SFIREG. If I have left anyone else, let me know. Why try to work with EPA and state regualtory agencies? 1. I want WPS document content & format approveal- at least unofficially. I want EPA to give the public something to work from. WE DON'T NEED SEVERAL SEMI-ACCEPTABLE WPS HAZCOM PRODUCTS. 2. We need an offical mechanism to keep the status of WPS approved or unapproved pesticide product information up-to-date. This is critical for the entire agricultural industry - not just the regulatory agencies. 3. NASDA & USDA can work with EPA to help make these WPS documents available to NASDA memebers, state field enforcement agents, state pesticide coordinators, county agents, state poison control centers, EPA approved training agencies/assoc, etc. THESE REGULATORY PROFESSIONALS NEED THIS INFORMATION, NOW! P.S. The Field enforcement need it as both a quide (not tp replace the label) and as a tool to work with and educate those they are inspecting - while the industry, both inspectors and farmers/reatailers get up-to-speed. P.S. #2: Our relationship with EPA is something I am comitted to and we will not make any marketing plans until we have sorted out any possible relationship with EPA, NASDA, Extension, etc. EPA will be able to either own or pass on the products as well as anything in between In addition - we are providing EPA an easy way to service their industry. These WPS documents are needed - desparately, and NOW. How can EPA or any state agency expect effective compliance without these documents being readily available. This is also a great service for EPA to provide their state counter parts! 3. We will be selling these two WPS documents early this summer, even if EPA does not participate. The will be in both book/manual or printed form as well as a computer program. I have been marketing to growers and ag retailers an MSDS system that is idiot proof and cheap ($400-$500/location). The WPS documents will be on the same system. Until we have sorted out things with EPA we will not determine a marketing strategy or a price. My goal is to sell a lot for a little. And we must have an effective means to update. How about a internet WPS accessability, update mechanism, etc. I would love anyone's thoughts on these issues. From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Mar 6 13:03:15 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 NAA10701 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:03:14 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id QAA14939; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:02:01 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794534421; Mon, 06 Mar 95 12:54:00 EST Date: Mon, 06 Mar 95 12:54:00 EST Message-Id: <9502067945.AA794534421@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: clarification of WPS Regarding Gregorio Billikopf's response to my response to Ron Ackerman's question, dairy farmers are clearly exempt from WPS if they do not harvest any agricultural plants that have ever been treated with a pesticide. EPA will be providing guidance on when harvested hay would come under the WPS provisions. Kay Rudolph US-EPA Region 9, San Francisco Regarding Ron Ackerman's question and Kay's response: Does this mean that dairy farmers are exempt from WPS? Gregorio > Ron Ackerman will probably get a half-dozen responses to his question > about whether operations that use pesticides on razing land or pasture > are covered by the WPS. That's because this is such a straightforward > answer that we'll all want to jump on it. > The WPS specifically exempts pesticide applications for pasture and > rangeland use. If you don't harvest the hay, then the WPS doesn't apply. > The WPS also specifically exempts pesticide applications on livestock or > other animals, or in or about animal premises. > > Kay Rudolph > US-EPA San Francisco, Region 9 > > > *************************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 9535 gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (209) 525-665 (209) 525-4969 FAX *************************************************** From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mon Mar 6 14:22:39 1995 Received: from exnet.iastate.edu (exnet.iastate.edu [129.186.107.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA13001 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 14:22:38 -0800 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA01148; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:23:49 -0600 Message-Id: <9503062223.AA01148@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 16:22:32 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) X-Mailer: I have two questions concerning WPS: 1. A farmer employs a hired hand to manage his hog confinement operation. The hired hand never handles pesticides or enters pesticide treated fields. However, the confinement buildings are within 1/4 mile of fields treated with pesticide. What WPS requirements must the farmer meet for the hired hand? 2. A farmer employs an individual to do field preparation work using field cultivators and disks. No pesticide has been applied in the fields prior to field preparation. However, fields are being treated or are under an REI within 1/4 mile of where the individual is working. Is the individual considered a handler even though he is not handling pesticides? What WPS requirements must the farmer provide for this individual? Thanks for your response. Wendy Wintersteen From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Mar 6 14:25:28 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 OAA13065 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 14:25:17 -0800 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id RAA16523; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 17:24:05 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794539347; Mon, 06 Mar 95 17:13:46 EST Date: Mon, 06 Mar 95 17:13:46 EST Message-Id: <9502067945.AA794539347@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Interpretative Guidance Workgroup Q&A's to be Archived Forum members: An electronic copy of the Interpretative Guidance Workgroup (IGW/EPA) questions and answers has been sent to Howard Rosenberg for archival on Forum. When the document has been placed in the Forum archives, Howard will provide instructions on how to retrieve this document. Judy Smith US EPA/Washington DC Cert., Training, & Occupational Safety 703-305-7666 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Mar 6 16:14:22 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.98] (gia5mac18.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.98]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA15702 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:14:20 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:14:58 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: archive additions and access Two files have been added to the forum archive. One is the revised edition of EPA's publication listing WPS training and informational materials. The items described have been produced by the EPA itself, state agencies and other organizations; and they include books, posters, leaflets, videos and slides, bulletins, fact sheets, field signs, and kits. Thanks to Judy Smith for providing this special February 23, 1995, update on a computer file, and to Noreen Wong for fixing it up as an ASCII document. Its filename is "tr-mats2.lst" [filename of the old edition in archive is tr-mats.lst]. The other item is the "summary guidance on determining liability for WPS violations" that Judy posted on Feb. 24. Now listed in the archive directory and available as an individual file, it includes a Feb. 13 cover memo from Jessie Baskerville, EPA Director of Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement, and an attachment listing 10 factors for State Agencies to consider on a case-by-case basis. Its filename is "liable-1.epa". [ Recall that a 12/21/94 letter to EPA from NASDA and four other agricultural organization, requested clarification on WPS responsibility and liability among agricultural employers, owners and operators, and the FLCs or other contractors whose services they may use. Filename of that letter is "liablty1.csp" ] To obtain a copy of any file, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu (*not* to wps-forum) the message: GET WPS-FORUM More archive additions will be announced later this week. ---------------------------------------------------- At the risk of confusing the issue, I'll drop something else in here. The "GET" command is just fine for obtaining files as conventional e-mail messages. But other ways of accessing the archive using gopher or the World Wide Web (WWW) provide for easier browsing (these require a certain type of connection to the internet, however, so not everyone will be able to use them). Using your favorite WWW browser (Netscape, Mosaic, etc.) or gopher client, you can connect to the main computer of the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics here at the University of California at Berkeley. Although this computer--are.berkeley.edu--can also be reached through the UC Berkeley main gopher menu (under the headings College of Natural Resources, Agricultural and Resource Economics), the preferable direct route is to open a connection (using a gopher client or a WWW browser) to are.berkeley.edu using the following URL: gopher://are.berkeley.edu/ The "Archive of the Worker Protection Standard Info Forum" heading will be found in the main gopher menu of are.berkeley.edu. This gopher area is also accessible from the Home Page of the A.R.E. WWW server, to which you can connect at location http://are.berkeley.edu. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard Rosenberg From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Mon Mar 6 17:05:40 1995 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA17164 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 17:05:39 -0800 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id UAA04305; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 20:05:08 -0500 Date: 06 Mar 95 20:02:44 EST From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: ddd Subject: MSDS and WPS compliance. Message-ID: <950307010243_71154.2454_DHQ39-2@CompuServe.COM> Two questions: 1. Are MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) important for those trying to comply with the WPS regulation? 2. If MSDS are needed on the farm - are they readily available? How? Is it costly? Thanks Dr. Earl H. Tryon From DCRESS@oz.oznet.ksu.edu Tue Mar 7 06:29:51 1995 Received: from grunt.ksu.ksu.edu (root@grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA26941 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 06:29:50 -0800 Received: from oz.oznet.ksu.edu by grunt.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.10/1.34) id IAA03467; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:29:45 -0600 Received: from OZ/SpoolDir by oz.oznet.ksu.edu (Mercury 1.21); 7 Mar 95 08:34:53 CST6CDT Received: from SpoolDir by OZ (Mercury 1.21); 7 Mar 95 08:34:43 CST6CDT From: "DONALD CRESS" Organization: KSU ESARP and AG To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:34:39 CST6CDT Subject: IGW documents X-Confirm-Reading-To: "DONALD CRESS" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.2 (pr2) Message-ID: <134BAB54497@oz.oznet.ksu.edu> My concern with the IGW document(s) was, and remains, if we in Extension can not even get a copy of the IGW, then how in the world can the impacted community be expected to get it at the rate of (I assume) one copy per copy of the HTC manual? Further, if these are "interpertations", how enforcable are they? And further, I assume EPA will fund the printing if these IGW documents!!? It would be the only right thing for them to do. -Don- xzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxcresszxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx z z x Don Cress, Extension Pesticide Coordinator Phone 913/532-5891 x z Dept. Entomology, Kansas State University FAX 913/532-6258 z x Manhattan, KS 66506 E-mail DCRESS@OZ.UMB.KSU.EDU x z z xzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxcresszxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Tue Mar 7 08:01:56 1995 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA27946 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:01:55 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 28752; Tue, 07 Mar 1995 11:00:21 +500 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 08:53:07 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098CFF1.5489BA80.28752@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Wendy, My response would be that the employee who works as a swinesman is not under the worker protection standard. For employee No.2 I would think he would not be a handler but could be considered a worker under the WPS because he is involved in the production of plants and will be within 1/4 mile of treated areas. Joanne Kick-Raack Ohio State Extension From mcstiles@ucdavis.edu Tue Mar 7 11:18:44 1995 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (ucdavis.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.250]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA02833 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:18:43 -0800 Received: from [128.120.162.58] by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.10/UCD3.4) id LAA03608; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:18:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:18:38 -0800 Message-Id: <199503071918.LAA03608@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szstiles@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: mcstiles@ucdavis.edu (Martha C. Stiles) Subject: Ag Safety Conference REMINDER OF THE UPCOMING AG CONFERENCE sponsored by AgSafe: Monday, Mar. 27 & Tues. Mar. 28, Sheraton Hotel, Rancho Cordova, CA (Sacto area) on the corner of Hwy 50 & Sunrise Blvd. Cost: for 2 days = $90 (with discount coupon $70), includes lunch, reception, breakfast, all conference trimmings, etc. List of topics: injury & illness prevention programs ergonomic job analyses in ag EPA worker protection standards ergonmics total quality management innovative safety practices safety incentive programs safety training materials For more info & discount coupons contact: Don Bennett, AgSafe PO Box 630 Murphys,CA 95247-0630 209 728-2466 Martha C. Stiles UC Davis Dept. of Applied Behavioral Sciences (916) 752-2606 FAX (916) 752-5660 From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Mar 7 12:11:37 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 MAA04921 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:11:36 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA03641; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:10:28 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794617665; Tue, 07 Mar 95 08:57:00 EST Date: Tue, 07 Mar 95 08:57:00 EST Message-Id: <9502077946.AA794617665@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about WPS scope In response to Wendy's two questions: #1: The WPS provides protections for pesticide handlers and agricultural workers as defined in the regulation. In general, the WPS does not apply to other employees on the agricultural establishment, such as administrative staff, or employees in a packing house, or employees engaged in agricultural activities not covered by the WPS (such as livestock confinement operations). There is, of course, the basic provision that pesticide users not allow pesticides to be applied in a way that will contact other persons directly or through drift -- but the WPS requirements regarding training, notification, decontamination, and so forth, do not apply to these other employees. They are covered under OSHA regulations. #2: WPS defines people doing field preparation (that does not involve application of a pesticide) as agricultural workers. The farmer must provide these employees with the WPS protections required for workers, including notification about areas under REI within 1/4 mile of the worksite. Other requirements are outlined in the How to Comply manual. Kay Rudolph US-EPA Region 9, San Francisco --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have two questions concerning WPS: 1. A farmer employs a hired hand to manage his hog confinement operation. The hired hand never handles pesticides or enters pesticide treated fields. However, the confinement buildings are within 1/4 mile of fields treated with pesticide. What WPS requirements must the farmer meet for the hired hand? 2. A farmer employs an individual to do field preparation work using field cultivators and disks. No pesticide has been applied in the fields prior to field preparation. However, fields are being treated or are under an REI within 1/4 mile of where the individual is working. Is the individual considered a handler even though he is not handling pesticides? What WPS requirements must the farmer provide for this individual? Thanks for your response. Wendy Wintersteen From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Tue Mar 7 14:11:10 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV (sies.wsc.ag.gov [199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA08578 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:11:08 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 07 Mar 1995 17:14:13 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 17:12:37 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about WPS scope -Reply Kay- Doesn't it make a difference who owns the treated area? If the farmer does not use pesticides, must *any* WPS protections be provided to the workers? If the same farmer owns a treated area that is within 1/4 mile, what are some of the "other requirements" besides notification required for the worker in the non-treated area? >#2: WPS defines people doing field preparation (that does not involve< >application of a pesticide) as agricultural workers. The farmer must< >provide these employees with the WPS protections required for< >workers, including notification about areas under REI within 1/4 mile< >of the worksite. Other requirements are outlined in the How to Comply< >manual.< Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Tue Mar 7 14:19:56 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 OAA08924 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:19:55 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id RAA27246; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:18:53 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id RAA29316; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:19:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:03:15 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: RE: WENDY WINTERSTEEN QUESTIONS To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <9503062223.AA01148@exnet.iastate.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I agree with the other commenters that the person hired to work with livestock is not covered by the WPS as long as that person does not perform tasks related to the production of agricultural plants. The second person -- performing tasks in a field within 1/4 mile of another field that remains under a restricted-entry interval -- is a worker (not a handler) under the WPS. However, the protections that person must receive depends on certain circumstances: -- information about agricultural-plant-related pesticide applications on the establishment must be posted at a central location along with the WPS safety poster and certain emergency information. -- the person does not trigger the WPS training or decontamination requirements, since (apparently) the area he is working in has not had, within the last 30 days, a pesticide applied or a restricted-entry interval in effect. -- the person does not trigger the WPS notification requirements (oral warning or posting of treated areas) if he is driving mechanized equipment. The WPS notification requirement is triggered if someone enters an area where an restricted-entry interval is in effect OR is within 1/4 mile ON FOOT of an area where a restricted-entry interval is in effect. Therefore, it is possible that the only WPS requirement triggered by this person is posting application-specific information (and the WPS poster) at a central location. This is triggered if any handler or worker performing WPS-covered tasks is employed by the ag establishment and, within the past 30 days, a pesticide within the scope of the WPS has been applied or a WPS restricted-entry interval has been in effect. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Mar 7 15:05:26 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.98] (gia5mac18.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.98]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA09944 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:05:24 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:06:02 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: comments from NASDA in archive A single new file in the archive contains the text of five statements submitted to the EPA by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). The statements comment respectively on the series of five notices published by EPA on January 11, 1995, proposing rule amendments and requesting comments about: (1) WPS requirements for crop advisors; (2) the worker training grace period and retraining interval; (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk pesticides; (4) exceptions to early entry restrictions for irrigation tasks; and (5) exceptions to early entry restrictions for tasks involving limited contact with treated surfaces. Thanks to Mark Nestlen, Ray McAllister, and Al French for providing this material. Name of the file in archive is "comms95.nas", and size is 60K bytes. To obtain a copy send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM comms95.nas Howard Rosenberg From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Mar 7 17:16:46 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 RAA12676 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:16:45 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id UAA09678; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 20:15:38 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794636038; Tue, 07 Mar 95 17:07:00 EST Date: Tue, 07 Mar 95 17:07:00 EST Message-Id: <9502077946.AA794636038@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about WPS scope -Reply Al French has noted an important point: don't make assumptions without stating those assumptions clearly. So, as for the worker doing field preparation: notification is required if that person will "enter, work in, remain in, or pass through on foot the treated area or any area within 1/4 mile of the treated area" so long as that area is part of the same establishment as the fieldworker is working in, and the pesticide involved had the WPS reference on the label. If the field being prepared had had a pesticide application or been under REI within the previous 30 days (and provided the pesticide involved had a WPS reference on the label), then the decontamination, central application list, pesticide safety training, and emergency assistance provisions apply. These are short answers: I strongly urge the employer to review the requirements as described in the How to Comply manual. Kay Rudolph US-EPA Region 9, San Francisco *********************************************************************** **************************** Kay- Doesn't it make a difference who owns the treated area? If the farmer does not use pesticides, must *any* WPS protections be provided to the workers? If the same farmer owns a treated area that is within 1/4 mile, what are some of the "other requirements" besides notification required for the worker in the non-treated area? >#2: WPS defines people doing field preparation (that does not involve< >application of a pesticide) as agricultural workers. The farmer must< >provide these employees with the WPS protections required for< >workers, including notification about areas under REI within 1/4 mile< >of the worksite. Other requirements are outlined in the How to Comply< >manual.< Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs From Mac82nd@aol.com Wed Mar 8 11:46:06 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA26420 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:46:05 -0800 From: Mac82nd@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA211881933; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 14:45:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 14:45:33 -0500 Message-Id: <950308144503_43267354@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Mac82nd@aol.com Subject: Future and cause of cancer Steady Cancer Rate Increase Seen LONDON (Reuter) - Ten million people will get cancer a year by 2000 but most will have only their own lifestyle to blame, British researchers said Wednesday. The Cancer Research Campaign, which compiled statistics from more than a dozen studies, predicted a 10 to 15 percent increase in the world cancer rate between now and the end of the century. Smoking, poor diet and excessive sunbathing are to blame for many cases in the West, it said in a statement, adding that 80 percent of all cases are preventable. Cancer is the second-biggest cause of death in developed countries, after heart disease. ``Lung cancer is easily the most common (cancer) and will account for almost a million new cases, the vast majority of which will be fatal,'' the research charity said. Gordon McVie, scientific director of the Campaign, said statistics showed a steady upward trend in the number of new cases of cancer. There were 7.6 million new cases in 1985, 8.4 million in 1990 and he predicted 10.3 million in the year 2000. But the report stressed that cancer was still mainly a disease of the elderly, with more than 70 percent of all new cases occurring in people aged over 60 in developed countries. ``Reduction of tobacco consumption has to be the priority,'' McVie said. ``At present smoking is estimated to cause three million deaths each year worldwide and (this) will rise to 10 million by the year 2020 unless the messages about reduction and not starting in the first place get through.'' ``That's due to the fact that even if everyone stops smoking now there will be an increase in smoking-related deaths,'' he added, explaining that many smokers will already have suffered deadly damage. Scientists believe tobacco-smoking is a major cause of lung cancer and is also partly responsible for cancers of the bladder, pancreas, cervix and kidney. It may also be partly responsible for leukemia. From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed Mar 8 12:04:00 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 MAA26874 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:03:57 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 08 Mar 1995 12:02:25 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 12:01:59 -0800 To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Chemical Resistant Suit Requirements on Labeling Chemical Resistant Suit Requirements on Labeling I have a problem that I would like Forum users to assist me with if they Can. BACKGROUND The WPS, at 156.212, sets standards for PPE based on the toxicity of the end use product. The issue is dermal protection. The most stringent protection is coveralls over long sleeved, long legged work clothing (plus hand and foot protection of course). It also says in this section that any existing requirements that are more stringent must be retained. At 170.240, standards are set for a chemical resistant suit, if that is required by the labeling. QUESTIONS Are there any other labeling terms that trigger the "chemical resistant suit" standard in 170.212? Can anyone identify (by brand name and reg. no.) any pesticides that require a chemical resistant suit? Does anyone know of a data base that could sort by this requirement? PROBLEM/SITUATION For those who may be interested. California has a list of pesticides known as "minimal exposure pesticides" (MEPs). These are pesticides for which, under our registration and evaluation process as mandated by statute, chronic or delayed effects have been identified and which require further mitigation. The major requirement, after WPS, that applies to these MEPs is that a chemical resistant suit be worn (unless certain other engineering controls such as enclosed cabs and closed handling systems are used). The Department has been petitioned to recognize some modern "breathable" fabrics. Testing shows them to be significantly superior to cloth but they don't quite make the chemical resistant standard. It has been suggested to us that there are no remaining pesticides that require that a chemical resistant suit be worn (by labeling). This was based on a review of the Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Can anyone help? From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Wed Mar 8 12:27:41 1995 Received: from exnet.iastate.edu (exnet.iastate.edu [129.186.107.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA27446 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:27:39 -0800 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA17777; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 14:28:31 -0600 Message-Id: <9503082028.AA17777@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 14:27:17 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) X-Mailer: Thanks for all the respones to my questions earlier this week. Now I have another question. A herbicide has been applied preplant incorporated. The individual doing the incorporation is considered a handler (the incorporation is part of the application). Does the individual incorporating the herbicide wear the PPE listed for application or listed for early entry. I ask this question because sometimes the PPE for early entry is more restrictive than that for application. Thanks for your help. From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed Mar 8 17:19:59 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 RAA05046 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 17:19:57 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id UAA01495; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 20:18:50 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA794722630; Wed, 08 Mar 95 17:06:00 EST Date: Wed, 08 Mar 95 17:06:00 EST Message-Id: <9502087947.AA794722630@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Handler PPE When a person is doing activities defined as handler activities, that person is a handler and the handler provisions apply. Therefore, the person described in the question listed below would be provided the PPE for handlers. You are correct in noting that PPE for workers may go beyond PPE for handlers -- workers engaged in early-entry activities must be supplied with coveralls by the employer. One reason this is so is that workers have less experience working around pesticides, and so would not be as cognizant of the precautions to take when caring for pesticide-contaminated clothing as handlers would be. Therefore, the responsibility for the outer layer of clothing falls upon the early-entry worker employer. --Kay Rudolph US-EPA Region 9, San Francisco A herbicide has been applied preplant incorporated. The individual doing the incorporation is considered a handler (the incorporation is part of the application). Does the individual incorporating the herbicide wear the PPE listed for application or listed for early entry. I ask this question because sometimes the PPE for early entry is more restrictive than that for application. Thanks for your help. From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Thu Mar 9 06:09:04 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 GAA05346 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 06:09:04 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id JAA26739; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:08:01 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id JAA15806; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:08:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 08:50:59 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Chemical Resistant Suit Requirements on Labeling To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII PR Notice 93-7, which was issued by EPA on April 20, 1993, stated in Supplement Three, "Main Labeling Guidance," that if the existing product labeling contained a requirement for "waterproof," "impermeable," or other liquidproof suit or clothing, a "chemical-resistant protective suit" would be required on the WPS-complying labeling. In addition, PR Notice 93-7 required registrants to notify EPA that the labeling would require a chemical-resistant suit. EPA removed the requirement for a chemical-resistant suit from all WPS labeling and substituted "coveralls worn over long-sleeve shirt and long pants" instead. There were two exceptions (1) handlers cleaning up spills of ethyl parathion must wear chemical-resistant suits and (2) handlers entering bulk tanks that contained dichloropropene (Telone) must wear chemical-resistant suits. It has recently come to EPA's attention that a few WPS labels contain a requirement that handlers wear chemical-resistant suits. Some azinphosmethyl (Guthion) products bear such a requirement and I have heard that one or two other products have been sighted bearing chemical-resistant suit requirements also. EPA's Occupational and Residential Exposure Branch in the Health Effects Division is attempting to determine why the chemical-resistant suit requirement is on these labels (i.e., mistake during WPS process or intentional through Special Review). The long-term goal is to eliminate any requirement for a chemical-resistant suit for routine agricultural handler tasks, such as mixing, loading, application, and flagging. From dbreth@cce.cornell.edu Thu Mar 9 08:54:45 1995 Received: from cce.cornell.edu (EMPIRE.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA07496 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 08:54:44 -0800 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0rmlVt-0003VDC; Thu, 9 Mar 95 11:56 EST Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:55:29 -0500 (EST) From: Deborah Breth Subject: EPA WPS and OSHA Hazard Communication, Sanitation Standard (fwd) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:08:45 -0500 (EST) From: Deborah Breth To: wps-forum@are.Berk Cc: Deborah Breth Subject: EPA WPS and OSHA Hazard Communication, Sanitation Standard To: EPA and OSHA I have been hearing from most authorities that there is a memorandum of agreement between EPA and OSHA to have EPA WPS take care of safety standards concerning pesticides in agricultural establishments, and OSHA will handle all non-pesticide chemical hazards on the farms. If this is true, the growers need to see this in writing to release them from legal liability from both of these standards concerning pesticide and worker safety. We educators need clarification from EPA and OSHA concerning who has what in their jurisdiction. I just had a WPS WORKSHOP in NY where I am trying to demonstrate to growers that they are already complying with the WPS requirements in part through their efforts with HazCom. But in a discussion about decontamination sites for handlers, OSHA and I reached different conclusions concerning the need for a separate shower facility on the farm. If the PPE is cleaned off with soap and water before removed from the handler, hung up in a PPE storage separate from the chemical handling and storage, then the handler can go back to labor camp or any other shower facility on the premise to finish cleaning up. The OSHA rep. said that the farm needed a dedicated shower facility for handlers on the farm for decontamination since the residue from the shower would contaminate other workers. He also said we can't use the same water for the worker decontamination sites as that provided for the OSHA Sanitation standard sites since it would contaminate the sanitation sites. He said that MSDS must be reviewed with the workers before potential exposure to any chemical hazard in the employees language, "worker as defined by OSHA is not the same as a worker or handler according to WPS. EPA and OSHA must if not already done, get together to straighten this mess out and communicate the interpretations down to the enforcement level. When a professional educator thinks after several weeks of preparation and review of the regulations and standards that this can be understandable and then an OSHA representative talks at labor meetings as if WPS does not exist, it sets up major obstacles to the educational process. If a professional educator can get confused and concerned, we certainly can't expect growers to get it right. One more question- if the application list must be hung up before an application takes place or before workers come to work on the establishment at the central location, how can we accurately report the time of application on the list if it is not yet complete? I have been patiently trying to work this out for NY Fruit growers to help them do what needs to be done, but I am sure you can hear my frustration finally coming to the surface. Any input from EPA and OSHA would be appreciated as soon as possible since I have an identical meeting planned for March 16. Thank you for your response. From ams@cftnet.com Thu Mar 9 15:59:11 1995 Received: from renoir.cftnet.com (renoir.cftnet.com [163.125.1.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA24479 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 15:59:06 -0800 Received: (ams@localhost) by renoir.cftnet.com (8.6.10/8.6.4) id SAA15010; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 18:57:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 18:57:14 -0500 (EST) From: Marc Donovan X-Sender: ams@renoir To: WPS list Subject: WPS conference in Texas Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mid Valley Chemicals, Inc of Weslaco, Texas is hosting a live video demonstration of a WPS compliance software package in La Feria, Texas (near McAllen) on March 14. The software package, Application Management System, is widely used in the southeast and is being introduced into the Texas area by Mid Valley and United Agri-Products Inc. The conference will include a question/answer session about WPS compliance. For further information on this free conference, please contact Brenda or John at Mid Valley Chemical, Inc., 3201 N. Texas Blvd, Weslaco, TX 78599-0446. phone 210-968-2135. Marc Donovan ams@renoir.cftnet.com Commercial Computer Systems Inc. ag chemical management software home of the 1-800-340-7525 Application Management System St Pete FL From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Mar 9 17:38:29 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 RAA29283 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 17:38:28 -0800 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id UAA19397; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 20:37:56 -0500 Date: 09 Mar 95 20:35:07 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: WPS PPE Requirements Message-ID: <950310013507_73507.555_HHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Roy, This calls to mind a similar WPS labeling situation I have noticed. Many pesticides formerly required a respirator be worn during application. This was interpreted to mean at least a cartridge type respirator (TC-23C.) Some of these pesticides may now be applied using only a dust/mist respirator (TC-21C, actually more like a mask) if the application is not in an enclosed space. I first noticed this on the Miles Guthion label. While the WPS revisions have certainly improved the clarity of personal protective equipment statements on labels, they seem to provide a lower standard of protection in some cases. I also wondered about the references to "enclosed space." Could this refer to say, an application in a greenhouse? Some of these labels do not have specific greenhouse use directions but nor do they prohibit such applications. The reference seems to imply that such a use was considered. To answer your question, the only pesticides of which I am aware that require a chemical resistant suit are: Guthion, Nemacur and Phosdrin. The first two are Miles products and of course we won't have Phosdrin to kick around much longer. These are all the labels a local major pest control operator could find that require chemical resistant suits. They are considering discontinuing the use of Tyvek-coated suits because most labels no longer require them. Chemical-resistant suits used to be the standard. They are also considering using TC-21C "respirators." This will save them quite a bit of money. The effect on worker safety is somewhat ironic. >QUESTIONS >Are there any other labeling terms that trigger the >"chemical >resistant suit" standard in 170.212? >Can anyone identify (by brand name and reg. no.) any >pesticides that >require a chemical resistant suit? >Does anyone know of a data base that could sort by this >requirement? ****************************************************************** "Men hate the truth. They would rather meet a tiger in the road." - Robinson Jeffers Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri Mar 10 04:42:45 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 EAA13216 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 04:42:44 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id HAA10726; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 07:41:41 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id HAA02434; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 07:41:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 07:10:48 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: WPS PPE Requirements To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <950310013507_73507.555_HHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I would like to respond to your questions about the respirator statement on WPS-revised labeling. Until the WPS labeling revisions, most pesticide labeling that required a respirator used language similar to: "NIOSH/MSHA-approved respirator." During development of the WPS, EPA's Health Effects Division determined that a specific type of respirator should be specified, since NIOSH and MSHA approve many different types of respirators. The Agency determined that for most non-fumigant pesticides two types of respirators should be considered. One type is a dust/mist filtering respirator which is designed to filter particles, such as dusts, droplets, and other particulate matter; the other type is an organic-vapor removing cartridge or canister that is equipped with a dust/mist prefilter. In conjunction with OSHA and NIOSH, EPA developed a decision logic based on acute inhalation toxicity and the vapor pressure of the active ingredient(s) that determines which type of respirator is appropriate for a given pesticide product. To simplify a fairly complex issue, an organic-vapor-removing respirator does NOT provide increased protection to workers if the pesticide is not producing significant levels of organic vapors. Since it is generally recognized that the organic-vapor-removing respirators add considerable burden to wearers through increased heat stress and respiratory stress, EPA decided to specify "dust/mist-filtering" respirators on those pesticide labels where such a respirator was sufficiently protective. The question about enclosed areas is related to the question about respirator types. The decision logic developed by EPA to date uses data collected at outdoor sites. EPA is still developing a respirator decision logic for determining appropriate respirator-types in enclosed areas. Therefore, for those pesticide products whose labeling already contained an ambiguous (did NOT specify a specific type) respirator requirement before the WPS labeling revisions were enacted, EPA specified that an organic-vapor-removing respirator was required for exposures in enclosed areas. "Enclosed areas" refers not only to greenhouses, mushroom houses/caves, and other indoor plant-production areas, but also to pesticide storage areas where spills may occur, indoor mixing/loading facilities, and other non-application handling sites that may be located indoors. From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Fri Mar 10 08:02:27 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA14531 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 08:02:26 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:03:50 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:02:29 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: EPA WPS and OSHA Hazard Communication, Sanitation Standard (fwd) -Reply On March 9, 1995, Deborah Breth said: >I have been hearing . . . that there is a memorandum of agreement< >between EPA and OSHA to have EPA WPS take care of safety< >standards concerning pesticides in agricultural establishments, and< >OSHA will handle all non-pesticide chemical hazards on the farms. If< >this is true, the growers need to see this in writing . . .< See Federal Register August 21, 1992 , Worker Protection Standard; Hazard Information; Relationship Between EPA's Worker Protection Standard and OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard which states in part: "OSHA also concluded that when this NPRM is promulgated, EPA will have approximately the same requirements as the HCS. In view of this similarity, OSHA will defer to EPA and will not enforce the HCS with regard to employees exposed to pesticides who are covered by the Worker Protection Standard. However, OSHA will continue to enforce the HCS for other hazardous chemicals to which employees are exposed in agriculture." >(The OSHA rep.) said we can't use the same water for the worker< >decontamination sites as that provided for the OSHA Sanitation< >standard sites since it would contaminate the sanitation sites.< EPA explained In the WPS rulemaking, page 38123: " EPA notes that those establishments currently complying with the requirement for providing potable handwashing water to workers under OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard would also be in compliance with the EPA requirement for decontamination water if the same water were used. It is important to note, however, that EPA is not exercising any statutory authority in this rulemaking to address the general sanitation hazards addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation Standard." >(The OSHA rep.) said that MSDS must be reviewed with the workers< >before potential exposure to any chemical hazard . . .< That is true for hazardous chemicals covered by OSHA HCS. The WPS regulations are available in the WPS-FORUM archives. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Fri Mar 10 09:38:16 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA18894 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:38:13 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:40:51 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:39:21 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Posting Applications List - Reply On March 9, 1995, Deborah Breth asked: >If the application list must be hung up before an application takes< >place or before workers come to work on the establishment at the< >central location, how can we accurately report the time of application< >on the list if it is not yet complete?< Check the "How To Comply" manual, page 23, which states: "If the pesticide is not applied as scheduled, you must list the corrected time and date the application takes place. List the correction before the application takes place or as soon as practicable thereafter." Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri Mar 10 09:42:02 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 JAA19149 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:42:01 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id MAA28681; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:40:56 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id MAA29225; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:41:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:29:46 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: EPA WPS and OSHA Hazard Communication, Sanitation Standard To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Al French's response is correct in the quote about OSHA's willingness to defer to EPA since once "this NPRM" is promulgated, EPA's rule will have addressed approximately the same information transmittal issues as covered by the HCS. Unfortunately, EPA has never promulgated the NPRM to which OSHA refers. The NPRM, issued when the remainder of the WPS was revised in 1992, would extend to agricultural workers information about pesticides to which they are exposed. The information, as proposed by EPA, might be either an MSDS or a pesticide fact sheet, or both. Since the NPRM has not been promulgated, OSHA's willingness to defer is not clear. From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Fri Mar 10 13:30:40 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA25408 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 13:30:34 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:31:38 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:28:35 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: EPA WPS and OSHA Hazard Communication, Sanitation Standard -Reply On March 10, 1995, Sally McDonald said: >OSHA's willingness to defer [to EPA] is not clear.< Well, OK, but then let's bring it all out. The OSH Act (Sec. 4(b)(1)) states that the OSH Act does not apply "to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies . . . exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health." OSHA tried to establish pesticide reentry standards in the 1970's, but the courts barred that based on 4(b)(1). (Organized Migrants In Community Action v. Brennan, 520 F2d 1161 (DC Cir 1975)). In 1988 OSHA acknowledged, citing 4(b)(1), that pesticide applicators were not covered by OSHA HCS because "EPA has clearly exercised statutory authority for protecting them in the area of hazard communication." Handlers must be informed of labeling requirements prior to using a pesticide. There is no comparable requirement for workers other than early-entry workers. An argument could be made that since workers have less HazCom protection under WPS than applicators, EPA has not _adequately_ exercised its statutory authority with respect to workers and, thus, OSHA could assert HazCom jurisdiction over them. To the extent that argument is viable, I suppose OSHA's jurisdiction is unclear. Incidentally, and on the other hand, OSHA does have jurisdiction over pesticide manufacture, distribution and storage (including on-farm storage), and after-harvest residues that are not covered by EPA or FDA regulations (e.g., non-food crops). Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Sat Mar 11 13:13:37 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 NAA09072 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 13:13:36 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id QAA19465; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 16:12:33 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id QAA23009; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 16:12:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 16:07:54 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Posting Applications List - Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The Interpretive Guidance Workgroup has issued a clarification about the meaning of "as soon as practicable." Unfortunately, I only have the text in hard copy. Perhaps Judy Smith (sorry, for putting you on the spot, Judy) of EPA could obtain the text and send it out to the forum. Sally A. McDonald, Partner Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle Dublin, OH 43017 614-792-1681 On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Al French wrote: > On March 9, 1995, Deborah Breth asked: > > >If the application list must be hung up before an application takes< > >place or before workers come to work on the establishment at the< > >central location, how can we accurately report the time of application< > >on the list if it is not yet complete?< > > Check the "How To Comply" manual, page 23, which states: > > "If the pesticide is not applied as scheduled, you must list the > corrected time and date the application takes place. List the correction > before the application takes place or as soon as practicable thereafter." > > Al French > USDA Coordinator of > Agricultural Labor Affairs > alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov > 202/720-4737 > > From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Mar 13 07:23:07 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 HAA13881 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:23:06 -0800 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id KAA02634; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 10:21:58 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA795118806; Mon, 13 Mar 95 10:11:38 EST Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 10:11:38 EST Message-Id: <9502137951.AA795118806@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re[2]: Posting Applications List - Reply No problem, in regard to the clarification of "as soon as practicable." Will post this clarification as soon as I can obtain an electronic copy. Judy Smith USEPA/CT & OSB From 70730.3261@compuserve.com Mon Mar 13 08:18:37 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 IAA14726 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 08:18:26 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id LAA18882; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:17:41 -0500 Date: 13 Mar 95 11:14:56 EST From: Ted Olson <70730.3261@compuserve.com> To: WPS Forum Subject: ChemTrak, computer software, event calendar Message-ID: <950313161455_70730.3261_CHK95-1@CompuServe.COM> <> ChemTrak may also be viewed and demonstrated personally at any of the following upcoming events: Mar 15-16 Citrus Expo, Visalia Convention Center, Visalia CA Mar 22 Nut Grower Show, County Fair Grounds, Turlock CA Apr 5 Grape Grower Show, County Fair Grounds, Madera CA Apr 11-13 National Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training Workshop Sponsored by USEPA and USDA Catamaran Resort Hotel, San Diego CA May 17* OCS ChemTrak Seminar, est 5-7 CEU hours Porterville, Visalia, or Bakersfield CA* *(date and location tentative, check this forum for details or call OCS) CONTACT: OCS Software Ted Olson or Becky Rankin Email 70730.3261@compuserve.com Product Information (800)781-4123 Customer Service (209)781-4123 FAX (209)781-3718 From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Mar 13 08:35:07 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 IAA14963 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 08:35:06 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id LAA04755; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:33:59 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA795123128; Mon, 13 Mar 95 08:26:00 EST Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 08:26:00 EST Message-Id: <9502137951.AA795123128@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Fumigant Signs I believe I saw a posting while ago listing address for sources of fumigant signs. I did not realize how interested I would be in that information, and so neglected to keep the posting. If anyone has information on sources of fumigant signs, would you post that information again? There is still a market for that knowledge. Kay Rudolph US-EPA Region 9, San Francisco From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Mar 13 11:32:37 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.97] (gia5mac17.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA20241 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:32:35 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:33:14 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: Fumigant Signs > If anyone has information on sources of fumigant signs, would you post > that information again? There is still a market for that knowledge. Kay, A request for sources of fumigant signs was posted on 1/19/95, and it touched off several responses over the next week or so. Rather than repost them all, I suggest that you, and anyone else interested, leaf through the chronfile for that month (GET wps-forum 95.jan). Howard From shenkm@ava.bcc.orst.edu Mon Mar 13 13:45:24 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 NAA25678 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:45:23 -0800 Received: from [128.193.88.177] by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08923; Mon, 13 Mar 95 13:47:10 PST From: "Myron Shenk" Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 13:47:27 CST Message-Id: <49649.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Multiple Fields on Application List The manager of a corporate farm/custom pesticide applicator business called to ask if multiple fields can be listed on a single Pre- Application List, when the same product is being applied within a few minutes/hours on contiguous fields, or fields in relatively close proximity. For example, could the List show: Fields 1, 2, and 2b, etc.? Thanks. Myron Shenk Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From JBRACK@delphi.com Wed Mar 15 00:00:14 1995 Received: from bos1a.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1a.delphi.com [192.80.63.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA15527 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:00:12 -0800 From: JBRACK@delphi.com Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-9 #7804) id <01HO5EBCOVN4936HCH@delphi.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 03:00:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 03:00:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Is risk regulation more risky than risk? To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HO5EBCP5AA936HCH@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Since it seems to be a slow day on the forum, I've decided to take the _risk_ (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) of igniting another frozen chicken controversy by forwarding this little post from CEI re: the risks of risk regulation.... This wouldn't relate to our beloved WPS would it??? Hmmmmmmm??? Jim... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"cei@access.digex.net" "Competitive Enterprise Institute" 13-MAR-1 995 13:12:33.01 To: IN%"cei@access.digex.net" "Recipients of the CEI List" CC: Subj: CEI-List: Risk Regulation Return-path: Received: from access1.digex.net by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-9 #7804) id <01HO374FCR3496VZED@delphi.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:12:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by access1.digex.net id AA26821 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Mon, 13 Mar 1995 12:58:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 12:58:29 -0500 (EST) From: Competitive Enterprise Institute Subject: CEI-List: Risk Regulation To: Recipients of the CEI List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT *Press Release* By Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel Feb. 1995 PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP CALLS FOR CONGRESS TO RECOGNIZE THE RISKY NATURE OF GOVERNMENT RISK REGULATION Testifying before the House Science Committee on regulatory reform and H.R. 9, the Competitive Enterprise Institute today called for recognition of the fact that government agencies often seek to advance their own interests at the expense of the public. Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel, stated: "Regulatory reform will fail unless we realize that agencies have their own special interests. They seek bigger budgets, bigger jurisdiction, and bigger 'emergencies' to scare the public into calls for more federal programs. Simply telling agencies to do better analysis won't solve this problem." Mr. Kazman outlined three steps for effective regulatory reform: 1) Recognize institutional incentives and take advantage of them, by expanding judicial review and OMB oversight: The peer review mandated by H.R. 9 should not be left up to individual agencies, because they will soon figure out ways to bend this to their advantage. Instead, it should be job of OMB, whose function is to restrain agencies. Moreover, all of the expanded analysis required under H.R. 9 should be reviewable in court challenges. 2) Impose an across-the-board requirement that the benefits of any rule be shown to exceed its risks: A basic principle of government is that every regulation produce a net benefit. In practice, however, this has become the exception rather than the rule. This situation needs to be reversed. If there are justifiable exceptions to this net benefit principle, then Congress can deal with them on a case by case basis. 3) Put an end to "regulation by hypothecation". Rules based on hypothetical threats to human health and safety should be supported by a preponderance of evidence: Some of the worst cases of unfounded regulation have involved rules issued with no direct evidence of human risk at the exposure levels at issue. EPA's residential radon campaign, for example, is based on extrapolations from extremely high mining exposures. Yet the most extensive study of this issue to date--an analysis of over 500 nonsmoking lung cancer cases--found no detectable risk from residential radon. (Alavanja, et al., Residential Radon Exposure and Lung Cancer Among Nonsmoking Women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 21, 1994.) If a rule is not based on direct or epidemiological evidence that the exposure levels at issue pose a risk to people, then it should not receive the deference that courts customarily give to agencies. Instead, we should require that it be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. CEI is a nonprofit free-market advocacy organization that has long been involved in exposing the unrecognized costs of government overregulation. In 1992, CEI won a federal court ruling that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had illegally concealed the lethal effects of its new car fuel economy standards. CEI v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d 321 (D.C. Cir.). _______ __________ ___________ / | / | | | |__________ | | | | \ | | \ _______ |__________ ___________ COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW #1250 Washington, DC 20036 202-331-1010, fax 202-331-0640 Permission to copy granted as long as these lines are left intact. To subscribe to the cei list, send a message to CEI@digex.com. "The Virtual Hand: CEI's free-market guide to the information superhighway" is available for $5. CEI's monthly newsletter, "CEI UpDate," is free to contributors of $25. From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed Mar 15 04:14:04 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 EAA19458 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 04:14:03 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id HAA11079; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:12:52 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id HAA22447; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:12:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:53:27 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Multiple Fields on Application List To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <49649.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII As long as (1) the posted information is accurate and contains all the WPS-required information AND (2) the location/description of the area(s) to be treated clearly differentiates the treated areas from other areas on the establishment, the WPS allows listing multiple treated areas as a single entry on an Application List. Application would be considered complete and the REI would begin for the entire designated area once the entire area had been treated. On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Myron Shenk wrote: > The manager of a corporate farm/custom pesticide applicator business > called to ask if multiple fields can be listed on a single Pre- > Application List, when the same product is being applied within a few > minutes/hours on contiguous fields, or fields in relatively close > proximity. For example, could the List show: Fields 1, 2, and 2b, > etc.? Thanks. Myron Shenk > > Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu > IPPC > Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 > Oregon State University > Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 Sally A. McDonald Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle Dublin, OH 43017 From agcom15@chiba.netxn.com Wed Mar 15 11:34:01 1995 Received: from chiba.netxn.com (chiba.netxn.com [199.172.49.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA02782 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:33:16 -0800 Received: (agcom15@localhost) by chiba.netxn.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) id LAA25702; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:45:14 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:45:14 -0800 (PST) From: Kern County Agricultural Comissioner To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Jim Brackeen Subject: ASCII Regional Worker Protection Contacts... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII For those unaccutomed to dealing with encoded binary files... An ASCII version of a previous post, for your viewing and printing pleasure... (Let's watch that formatting folks!!!)... Jim... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA REGIONAL WORKER PROTECTION CONTACTS Ms. Pam Ringhoff Mr. Jerry Oglesby U.S. EPA, Region I U.S. EPA, Region VI Pesticides Section (APP) Pesticides Section (6T-PP) John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg. 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02203 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Phone: 617/565-3931 Phone: 214/665-7563 FAX: 617/565-4939 FAX: 214/665-2164 Ms. Theresa Yaegel-Souffront Ms. Kathleen Fenton U.S. EPA, Region II, (MS- 240) U.S. EPA, Region VII Pesticides, & Asbestos Section Pesticides Section (TOPE) 2890 Woodridge Avenue, Bldg. 209 726 Minnesota Avenue Edison, NJ 08837 Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone: 908/906-6897 Phone: 913/551-7874 FAX: 908/321-6771 FAX: 913/551-7065 Ms. Magda Rodriguez Ms. Margaret Collins U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region VIII Pesticides Section (3AT-32) Pesticides Section (8ART-TS) 841 Chestnut Bldg. 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Denver, CO 80202-2405 Phone: 215/597-0442 Phone: 303/293-1872 FAX: 215/597-3156 FAX: 303/293-1647 Ms. Jane Horton Ms. Katherine H. Rudolph U.S. EPA, Region 4 U.S. EPA, Region IX Pesticides Section (4APT) Pesticides Section (A-4-5) 345 Courtland Street, NE 75 Hawthorne Street Atlanta, GA 30365 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 404/347-3222 Phone: 415/744-1065 FAX: 404/347-1681 FAX: 415/744-1073 Mr. Don Baumgartner Mr. Allan Welch Mr. John Forwalter U.S. EPA, Region X Ms. Irene Miranda Pesticides Section (AT-083) U.S. EPA, Region V 1200 Sixth Avenue Pesticides Section (SP-14J) Seattle, WA 98101 77 West Jackson Boulevard Phone: 206/553-1980 Chicago, IL 60604-3507 FAX: 206/553-8338 Phone: 312/886-7835 (Don) 886-7834 (John) 353-9686 (Irene) FAX: 312/353-4342 REVISED MARCH 1995 From agcom15@chiba.netxn.com Wed Mar 15 11:52:21 1995 Received: from chiba.netxn.com (chiba.netxn.com [199.172.49.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA03357 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:47:12 -0800 Received: (agcom15@localhost) by chiba.netxn.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) id LAA25810; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:59:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:59:51 -0800 (PST) From: Kern County Agricultural Comissioner To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Jim Brackeen Subject: ASCII National Worker Protection Contact List... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Even More ASCII... See my previous post.... Jim.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL WORKER PROTECTION CONTACT LIST REGION I CONNECTICUT NEW HAMPSHIRE Ms. Debra Cattucio Mr. Murray L. McKay, Director Pesticides/PCB Management Division Division of Pesticide Control Dept. of Environmental Protection New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture 165 Capitol Avenue Caller Box 2042 Hartford, CT 06106-1600 Concord, NH 03302-2042 Phone: 203/566-5148 Phone: 603/271-3550 FAX: 203/566-4379 FAX: 603/271-1109 MAINE RHODE ISLAND Ms. Tammy Gould Ms. Elizabeth M. Lopes-Duguay Board of Pesticide Control Senior Plant Pathologist ME Dept. of Agriculture/Food & Rural Division of Agriculture Resources Department of Environmental Station 28 Management State Office Building 22 Hayes Street Augusta, ME 04333-0028 Providence, RI 02908-5025 Phone: 207/287-2731 Phone: 401/277-2781 FAX: 207/287-7548 FAX: 401/277-6047 MASSACHUSETTS VERMONT Ms. Lillian Rivera Mr. John Berino Pesticide Bureau/Department of Food Division of Plant Industry & Agriculture Laboratories & Consumer Assurance Department of Agriculture Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets 100 Cambridge Street 116 State Street Boston, MA 02202-0009 Montpelier, VT 05620-2901 Phone: 617-727-3020 Phone: 802/828-2431 FAX: 617/727/7235 FAX: 802/828-2361 REGION II NEW JERSEY PUERTO RICO Mr. Raymond Ferrarin Ms. Arline R. de Gonzalez, Director Assistant Director Agriculture Materials Laboratory Pesticide Control Program Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture New Jersey Dept. of Environmental P.O. Box 10163 Protection and Energy Santurce, PR 00908 CN 411 Phone: 809/796-1710 Trenton, NJ 08625 FAX: 809/796-4426 Phone: 609/530-4122 FAX: 609/530-8324 NEW YORK VIRGIN ISLANDS Mr. John Wainwright Mr. Leonard Reed Bureau of Pesticides Regulation Assistant Director New York State Department of Division of Environmental Protection Environmental Conservation Virgin Islands Dept. of Planning 50 Wolf Road & Natural Resources Albany, NY 12233-7254 Nisky Center, Suite 231 Phone: 518/457-7482 Nisky 45 A FAX: 518/457-0629 St. Thomas, U.S. VI 00802 Phone: 809/774-3320 FAX: 809/774-5416 REGION III DELAWARE PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Larry Towle Mr. Dave Bingamen Delaware Dept. of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry 2320 S. Dupont Highway PA Department of Agriculture Dover, DE 19901 2301 N. Cameron Street Phone: 302/739-4811 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 FAX: 302/697-6287 Phone: 717/787-4843 FAX: 7l7/783-3275 D.C. VIRGINIA Mr. Mark Greenleaf (C-T) Mr. Don Delorme DCRA/ERA/ECD Office of Pesticide Management Pesticides Section - Suite 203 VA Department of Agriculture 2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE & Consumer Services, Washington, DC 20020 P.O. Box 1163, Rm. 403 Phone: 202/645-6080 1100 Bank Street FAX: 202/645-6622 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: 804/371-6558 FAX: 804/371-8598 MARYLAND WEST VIRGINIA Mr. John Bergquist Mr. Ed Hartman Pesticide Regulation Section West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture Maryland Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 66 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway Inwood, WV 25428 Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: 304/229-0981 Phone: 410/841-5710 FAX: 304/229-2510 FAX: 410/841-2765 REGION IV ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI Mr. Pat Morgan Mr. Tommy McDaniel Pesticide Administrator Pesticide Coordinator AL Dept. Agriculture & Industries MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry P.O. Box 3336 P.O. Box 5207 Montgomery, AL 36109-0336 Miss. State, MS 39762 Phone: 205/242-2656 Phone: 601/325-3390 FAX: 205/240-3103 FAX: 601/325-8397 FLORIDA NORTH CAROLINA Dr. Marion Fuller Ms. Kay Glenn Ms. Mari Dugarte-Stavania Pesticide Specialist Florida Dept. of Agriculture N.C. Dept. of Agriculture 3125 Conner Boulevard, MC-2 P.O. Box 27647 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 Raleigh, NC 27611 Phone: 904/487-0532 Phone: 919/733-3556 FAX: 904/922-2134 FAX: 919/733-9796 GEORGIA SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. Mike Evans Dr. Neil Ogg Special Projects Coordinator Ms. Tammy Lark Georgia Dept. of Agriculture Special Programs Manager Entomology & Pesticides Dept. of Fertilizer & Pesticide Capitol Square, Suite 550 Control Atlanta, GA 30334 257 Poole Agricultural Center Phone: 404/656-4958 Clemson University, Box 340394 FAX: 404/657-8378 Clemson, SC 29634-0394 Phone: 803/656-3171 FAX: 803/656-3219 KENTUCKY TENNESSEE Mr. Ken Richeson Ms. Karen Roecker Worker Protection Coordinator Worker Safety Coordinator Kentucky Agriculture Tenn. Dept. of Agriculture Div. of Pesticides Div. of Plant Industries 500 Metro Street P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station Frankfort, KY 40601 Nashville, TN 37204 Phone: 502/564-7274 Phone: 615/360-0795 FAX: 502/564-3773 FAX: 615/360-0757 REGION V ILLINOIS MINNESOTA Mr. Thomas Walker, Manager Mr. Steve Poncin, Supervisor Support Services Pesticide Enforcement Unit Bureau of Environmental Programs MN Department of Agriculture IL Department of Agriculture 90 West Plato Blvd. State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281 St. Paul, MN 55107 Springfield, IL 62706 Phone: 612/296-5136 Phone: 217/785-2427 FAX: FAX: 217/785-4884 INDIANA OHIO Mr. Joseph Becovitz Mr. Robert DeVeny Office of Indiana State Chemist Pesticide Division Inspector Purdue University OH Department of Agriculture 1154 Biochemistry Building 65 South Front Street West Lafayette, IN 47907-1154 Columbus, OH 43068 Phone: 317/494-1585 Phone: 216/297-6452 FAX: 317/494-4331 FAX: 614/759-1467 MICHIGAN WISCONSIN Mr. Brian Rowe Mr. Eric Nelson MI Department of Agriculture WI Department of Agriculture Pesticides & Plant Pest Management Trade & Consumer Protection Division 801 West Badger Road 611 West Ottawa Street Madison, WI 53708 P.O. Box 30017 Phone: 608/224-4539 Lansing, MI 48909 FAX: 608/224-4656 Phone: 517/373-1087 FAX: 517/373-4540 REGION VI ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA Mr. Don Alexander/ Mr. Jerry Sullivan Mr. Charles Armstrong Plant Industry & Consumer Services Arkansas State Plant Board OK State Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 1069 2800 North Lincoln Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72203 Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298 Phone: 501/225-3590 Phone: 405/521-3864 FAX: 501/225-3590 FAX: 405/521-4912 LOUISIANA TEXAS Mr. Peter Grandi Mr. Earnest Valle LA Department of Agriculture TX Department of Agriculture & Forestry Stephen F. Austin Bldg. P.O. Box 3596 P.O. Box 12847 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596 Austin, TX 78711 Phone: 504/925-3760 Phone: 512/463-7717 FAX: 504/925-3760 FAX: 512/475-1618 NEW MEXICO Ms. Sherry Sanderson New Mexico Department P.O. Box 30005, Dept. 3AQ Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005 Phone: 505/646-4837 FAX: 505/646-5977 REGION VII IOWA MISSOURI Mr. Jim Ellerhoff Mr. Jim Lea, Supervisor Program Coordinator Plant Health Division IO Department of Agriculture MO Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship P.O. Box 630 Henry A. Wallace Building Jefferson City, MO 65101 900 East Grand Phone: 314/751-5508 Des Moines, IA 50319 FAX: 314/751-0005 Phone: 515/281-8506 FAX: 515/281-6800 Mr. Paul Andre Programs Coordinator Mr. Charles Eckermann MO Department of Agriculture IO Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 630 & Land Stewardship Jefferson City, MO 65101 Henry A. Wallace Building Phone: 314/751-9198 900 East Grand FAX: 314/751-0005 Des Moines, IA 50319 Phone: 515/281-8590 FAX: 515/281-6800 KANSAS NEBRASKA Mr. Gary Boutz, Mr. Geir Friisoe, Manager Pesticide Law Administrator Mr. Jamie Green, Prog. Coord. Ms. Glenda Mah, Pesticide/Noxious Weed Prog. Programs Coordinator Post Office Box 94756 Kansas State Board of Agriculture State House Station 901 S. Kansas, 7th Floor Lincoln, NE 68509 Topeka, KS 66612-1281 Phone: 402/471-2394 Phone: 913/296-5395 (G. Boutz) FAX: 402/471-3252 913/296-0672 (G. Mah) FAX: 913/296-0673 REGION VIII MONTANA SOUTH DAKOTA Mr. Steve Baril Mr. Brad Berven, Administrator Environmental Management Office SD Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Division of Regulatory Services Agriculture Livestock Bldg. Anderson Bldg. Capitol Station Pierre, SD 57501 Helena, MT 59620 Phone: 605/773-4012 Phone: 406/444-2944 FAX: 406/444-5409 Mr. Joshua Logg, Jr. Pesticide Enforcement Program Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe P.O. Box 590 Eagle Butte, SD 57625 Phone : 605/964-6551 FAX: 605/964-4151 Mr. Irv Provost, Coordinator Pesticide Enforcement Program Natural Resources Agency Oglal Sioux Tribe P.O. Box 468 Pine Ridge, SD 57770 NORTH DAKOTA UTAH Mr. Jack Peterson, Director Mr. Gary L. King ND Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture State Capitol Building 350 North Redwood Road 600 East Blvd. 6th Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Bismark, ND 58505-0020 Phone: 801/538-7188 Phone: 701/224-2231 FAX: 801/538-7126 FAX: 701/224-4567 REGION IX ARIZONA CALIFORNIA Mr. Dan Danielson Ms. Virginia Rosales Environmental Services Division Pesticides Enforcement Branch Department of Agriculture Department of Pesticide Regulation 1688 N. 7th Street CA Environmental Protection Agency Phoenix, AZ 85006 1220 N Street Phone: 602/407-2910 Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX: 602/407-2909 Phone: 916/445-3874 FAX: NAVAJO NATION HAWAII Mr. Jefferson Biakkedy Mr. Gerald Kinro Pesticide Regulatory Program Pesticides Branch Navajo Environmental Protection Division of Plant Industry Administration HI Department of Agriculture Navajo Nation P.O. Box 22159 P.O. Box 308 Honolulu, HI 96822-0159 Fort Defiance, AZ 86504 Phone: 808/973-9401 Phone: 602/729-4155 FAX: 808/973-9418 FAX: 602/729-5246 INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA NEVADA Ms. Elaine Wilson Mr. Chuck Moses Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Division of Plant Industry 4205 North 7th Avenue, Suite #200 NV Department of Agriculture Phoenix, AZ 85013 P.O. Box 11100 Phone: 602/248-0071 Reno, NV 89510-1100 FAX: 602/248-0080 Phone: 702/688-1180 FAX: 702/688-1178 REGION X ALASKA OREGON Mr. Carl Kalb Mr. Chris Kirby Dept. of Environmental Conservation OR Department of Agriculture 500 South Alaska, Suite A 635 Capitol Street, N.E. Palmer, AK 99645 Salem, OR 97310-0110 Phone: 907/745-3236 Phone: 503/378-3776 FAX: 907/745-8125 FAX: 503/378-5529 Ms. Marylin Schuster Oregon OSHA 21 Labor & Industries Bldg. Salem, OR 97310 Phone: 503/378-3272 FAX: 503/378-5729 IDAHO WASHINGTON Mr. John Helsol Ms. Ginny Hamilton Shoshone-Bannock Tribes WA Department of Labor & Industries P.O. Box 306 P.O. Box 44610 Fort Hall, ID 83203 Olympia, WA 98504-4610 Phone: 208/238-3860 Phone: 360/956-5426 FAX: 208/237-9736 FAX: 360/956-5438 Mr. Robert Hays Ms. Ann Wick ID Dept. of Agriculture WA State Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 790 Pesticide Management Division Boise, ID 83701 P.O. Box 42589 Phone: 208/334-3550 Olympia, WA 98504-2589 FAX: 208/334-2283 Phone: 360/902-2050 FAX: 360/902-2093 REVISED OCTOBER 1994 From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Wed Mar 15 12:25:20 1995 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA04892 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:25:18 -0800 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.10/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id MAA03304 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:24:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:24:59 -0800 Message-Id: <199503152024.MAA03304@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Multiple Fields on Application List One instance for which the mutiple listing would not be prudent would occur if reentry times were critical. The first portion of the application would be the same as the last in regards to reentry. Correct me if I am incorrect in my reading of this information. > Sally A. McDonald wrote in response: >As long as (1) the posted information is accurate and contains all the >WPS-required information AND (2) the location/description of the area(s) to >be treated clearly differentiates the treated areas from other areas on the >establishment, the WPS allows listing multiple treated areas as a single >entry on an Application List. Application would be considered complete and >the REI would begin for the entire designated area once the entire area had >been treated. -- > >On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Myron Shenk wrote: > >> The manager of a corporate farm/custom pesticide applicator business >> called to ask if multiple fields can be listed on a single Pre- >> Application List, when the same product is being applied within a few >> minutes/hours on contiguous fields, or fields in relatively close >> proximity. For example, could the List show: Fields 1, 2, and 2b, >> etc.? Thanks. Myron Shenk -- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From pbigelow@lamar.colostate.edu Wed Mar 15 12:44:10 1995 Received: from yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (root@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.64]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA06153 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:44:09 -0800 Received: from [129.82.184.11] by yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA88031; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:44:05 -0700 Message-Id: <9503152044.AA88031@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:45:11 -0700 To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: pbigelow@lamar.colostate.edu (Philip Bigelow) Subject: WPS - Train-the Trainer Program A FREE Worker Protection Standard training session, to be transmitted via satelite, is scheduled for APRIL 3, 1995 from 9:00 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. This training session is sponsored by the EPA and will train employers about their responsibilites under the Worker Protection Standard. The High Plains Inter-Mountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (HI-CAHS) at Colorado State University, in coordination with the EPA, Colorado State Univeristy Cooperative Extension, and the University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension, will be providing the free, satelite session concerning the EPA WPS. This year, the downlink session will be the only official EPA train-the-trainer program offered for Colorado and Wyoming. To determine whether or not your state will accept the satelite downlink as an official train-the-trainer program, please contact the agency administering the standard in your state. For further information concerning the downlink program and/or the downlink coordinates please contact Sarah Bramble, Don Beard, or Mike Salasek at the HI-CAHS Center (303) 491-6151. From cuadros@uclink2.berkeley.edu Wed Mar 15 15:11:59 1995 Received: from uclink2.berkeley.edu (uclink2.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.72]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA11391 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:11:58 -0800 Received: by uclink2.berkeley.edu (8.6.9/1.33(web)-OV2) id PAA00296; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:11:57 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:11:57 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Berg Cuadros Sender: Eric Berg Cuadros Reply-To: Eric Berg Cuadros Subject: Regulartory Reform To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <9503152044.AA88031@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Does anyone no how how HR 9 will effect the WPS? It has already been passed by the House of Representatives and requires a risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis for all health and environmental regulations. There are also portions called the Regulatory Bill of Rights and the Regulatory Impact Analysis. I do not know what these portions do, but the general direction of the bill is to greatly restrict all environmental and health regulations. I assume when they become law, it would put some limitations or kill WPS, but maybee someone at EPA would know exactly how WPS would be affected. -Eric Berg From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed Mar 15 15:39:58 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 PAA12421 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:39:57 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id SAA20050; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 18:38:41 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id SAA26824; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 18:38:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 18:19:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A few facts about the promulgation of the 1992 revisions to EPA's Worker Protection Standard: 1. The revisions to the WPS were developed during President Reagan's administration and proposed in July, 1988, while he was president. 2. The final revisions to the WPS were developed during President Bush's administration and issued in August, 1992, during a government-wide regulatory moratorium. The Bush administration was convinced that the health risks to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers resulting from exposure to pesticides necessitated issuance of the WPS despite the ongoing regulatory moratorium. 3. EPA developed a detailed cost/benefit analysis (over 200 pages long) that estimated the costs to affected agricultural sectors attributable to each provision in the revised rule. EPA also estimated the benefits to persons (mainly agricultural workers and pesticide handlers) who would receive the protections under the WPS. EPA negotiated many aspects of this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) with the Office of Management and Budget and the United States Department of Agriculture before the WPS was issued in August, 1992. Both OMB and USDA agreed to the key cost/benefit language in the final version of the RIA before the rule was promulgated. 4. A summary of the RIA states: "The final rule would serve to protect a labor force of 3.9 million exposed either directly or indirectly to pesticides as a result of their occupational exposure on farms, in forests, in nurseries, in greenhouses, or in commercial pesticide-handling operations. . . The annual cost of the rule is therefore expected to be 50 to 60 million dollars, while the estimated annual benefits of this final rule include avoiding 8,000 to 16,000 physician-diagnosed (nonhospitalized) acute and allergic pesticide poisoning incidents, avoiding about 300 hospitalized acute and allergic pesticide poisoning incidents, and avoiding potentially important numbers of cancer cases, serious developmental defects, still births, persistent neurotoxic effects, and nondiagnosed acute and allergic poisoning incidents." 5. The RIA indicates that EPA received support for revising the WPS from a number of sources, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board, a U.S. General Accounting Office report to Congress, and the Council of Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA). The Council of Scientific Affairs recommended that the AMA: "Urge EPA and other responsible state and federal regulatory agencies to continue their efforts at safeguarding human and environmental health, especially the health of agricultural workers who may be exposed to pesticides. Sally A. McDonald Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle Dublin, OH 43017 From woodard@igc.apc.org Thu Mar 16 09:23:41 1995 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA16629 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:23:40 -0800 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.11/Revision: 1.194 ) with SMTP id JAA28975 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:21:06 -0800 Received: from ppp16.igc.org (woodard@ppp16.igc.org [198.94.6.16]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.6.11/Revision: 1.4 ) with SMTP id JAA24277 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:19:02 -0800 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:19:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199503161719.JAA24277@igc3.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org >3. EPA developed a detailed cost/benefit analysis (over 200 pages >long) that estimated the costs to affected agricultural sectors >attributable to each provision in the revised rule. EPA also estimated >the benefits to persons (mainly agricultural workers and pesticide >handlers) who would receive the protections under the WPS. EPA negotiated Without having read (or wanting to read) all 200 pages, I had heard a rumor that EPA estimated that the average annual grower cost in real dollars was something like $48. Is this true? If so, I wouldn't take much stock in the rest of the report anyway. This is easily eaten up by paying labor and travel time for 1 (admittedly well paid) farm manager to a single train-the-trainer course. Things that make you say hmmmm. /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Thu Mar 16 10:47:07 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA19870 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:47:05 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 13:30:52 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:27:50 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS -Reply On March 15, 1995, Sally McDonald said: >Both OMB and USDA agreed to the key cost/benefit language in the< >final version of the RIA before the rule was promulgated.< USDA had significant concerns with respect to EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the WPS. These comments were published by EPA in the Federal Register on September 5, 1992, two weeks after the final WPS was issued. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Mar 16 11:02:31 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA20233 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:02:25 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:03:04 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: USDA comments on WPS draft On March 16, 1995, Al French said: >USDA had significant concerns with respect to EPA's Regulatory Impact >Analysis for the WPS. These comments were published by EPA in the >Federal Register on September 5, 1992, two weeks after the final WPS >was issued. USDA comments, as published in the Sept. 1992 FR, on economic costs and benefits of the WPS (June 1991 draft) are in the WPS-Forum archive as a file named "wps.fr9" (61251 bytes). Howard Rosenberg From Mac82nd@aol.com Thu Mar 16 12:15:36 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 MAA25572 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 12:15:35 -0800 From: Mac82nd@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA296164900; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:15:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:15:00 -0500 Message-Id: <950316151230_51549936@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Mac82nd@aol.com Subject: Archive Could someone please remind me how to get an archived file from the WPS forum. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Mar 16 12:30:14 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA27698 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 12:30:12 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 12:30:51 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Archive access reminder >Could someone please remind me how to get an archived file from the WPS >forum. Hrrrumph. From the (soon to be updated, but not in this regard) "welcome" message that everybody gets: ---------------------------------- The form of the GET command is: "GET WPS-Forum " (no quotation marks or brackets in the actual message), so you need to have the names of files you want. For a current list of names and brief descriptions of available files, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the one-line command: "INDEX WPS-Forum" (no quotes) The name of a file containing all the messages posted in August, for example, is "94.aug". To obtain a copy of this file via e-mail, send to ListProc the message: "GET WPS-Forum 94.aug" ---------------------------------- So to get the USDA comments, it's GET WPS-Forum wps.fr9 (and please don't forget to address to ListProc) Cheers, Howard From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Thu Mar 16 13:05:58 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 NAA03071 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 13:05:57 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id QAA20217; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 16:04:38 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id QAA15011; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 16:04:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:56:35 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS -Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The comments published in the Federal Register on September 5, 1992, were comments written by USDA about the June 1991 draft of the WPS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Based in part on those comments, EPA redrafted the entire RIA in late 1991 and early 1992. EPA then held a series of meetings with OMB and USDA where key language (particularly language about the benefits of the rule) was negotiated. The final RIA reflects the revisions sought by OMB and USDA. On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Al French wrote: > USDA had significant concerns with respect to EPA's Regulatory Impact > Analysis for the WPS. These comments were published by EPA in the > Federal Register on September 5, 1992, two weeks after the final WPS > was issued. > > Al French > USDA Coordinator of > Agricultural Labor Affairs > alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov > 202/720-4737 > Sally A. McDonald Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle Dublin, OH 43017 From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Thu Mar 16 15:39:15 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA25204 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:39:13 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HO7PDV0WOW8X0ZKF@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:38:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #8611) id <01HO7P9L0C4W8Y7D71@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:31:50 EST MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:31:50 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: Next Issue of IGW Q's and A's To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HO7P9MHX5I8Y7D71@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:30:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;05138161305991/2655706@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Forum members: More IGW Questions for FORUM The IGW workgroup will release another round of WPS interpretative questions and these will be forwarded to Howard Rosenberg to be archived on FORUM. When the Q&A's are archived, Howard will provide additional information, such as filenames, and indicate how to access the archived information. Judy Smith EPA/Washington Cert, Training & Occupational Safety Branch 703-305-7371 From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Thu Mar 16 16:52:14 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV (sies.wsc.ag.gov [199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA05848 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 16:52:13 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 19:51:04 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 19:53:10 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS -Reply -Reply The USDA comments stated, in part: "If EPA is unable to modify these deficiencies, USDA requests that these comments, including the appendix, be included in the publication of the draft final rule in the Federal Register." As the above paragraph indicates, if the final rule and its Regulatory Impact Analysis reflected the revisions sought by USDA, there would have been no reason for USDA to request, or EPA to publish, USDA's comments. On March 16, 1995, Sally McDonald stated: >The comments published in the Federal Register on September 5,< >1992, were comments written by USDA about the June 1991 draft of< >the WPS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Based in part on those< >comments, EPA redrafted the entire RIA in late 1991 and early 1992. < >EPA then held a series of meetings with OMB and USDA where key< > language (particularly language about the benefits of the rule) was< > negotiated. The final RIA reflects the revisions sought by OMB and< > USDA.< No, the final _rule_ reflects the negotiations that were held. In those negotiations USDA agreed not to hold up the implementation of the rule because of the RIA but USDA did not accept or agree with the RIA itself. Let me make it clear to anyone who may still be following this discussion: USDA fully supports worker protection. What is being discussed here is the fact that the agencies had some different ideas as to how that could best be accomplished (that were largely resolved) and USDA had serious concerns regarding the cost/benefit analysis for the rule (that the public record shows were not resolved). Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affiars alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri Mar 17 06:29:58 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 GAA13737 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 06:29:57 -0800 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id JAA04384; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:28:45 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id JAA19792; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:28:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:14:44 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <199503161719.JAA24277@igc3.igc.apc.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The RIA indicates that agricultural establishments without hired labor (family farms) bear a low cost-burden as compared to agricultural establishments with hired labor. The incremental continuing costs averaged across all establishments without hired labor are about $15 per establishment, whereas the costs averaged across all hired-labor agricultural establishments are about $140 per establishment per year. The RIA also indicates that most of the WPS provisions are totally or mostly variable (per worker) costs. However, two provisions that contain some fixed (per establishment) costs are training and notification. The analysis of the impact on 1-worker agricultural establishments versus the impact on 10-worker agricultural establishments assumes that all costs of training and notification are fixed rather than variable. The average incremental continuing cost due to all WPS provisions for a feed and grain farm with one hired employee is about $25 (or $25 per employee). For a feed and grain farm with 10 hired employees, it is about $115 per year (or $12 per employee). For vegetable/fruit/nut establishments with one hired employee, the average incremental continuing annual cost for all WPS provisions is about $95 per establishment (or $95 per employee). The cost is about $650 (or $65 per employee) for a vegetable/fruit/nut establishment with 10 hired employees. On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Woody wrote: > >3. EPA developed a detailed cost/benefit analysis (over 200 pages > >long) that estimated the costs to affected agricultural sectors > >attributable to each provision in the revised rule. EPA also estimated > >the benefits to persons (mainly agricultural workers and pesticide > >handlers) who would receive the protections under the WPS. EPA negotiated > > Without having read (or wanting to read) all 200 pages, I had heard a rumor > that EPA estimated that the average annual grower cost in real dollars was > something like $48. Is this true? If so, I wouldn't take much stock in the > rest of the report anyway. This is easily eaten up by paying labor and > travel time for 1 (admittedly well paid) farm manager to a single > train-the-trainer course. Things that make you say hmmmm. > /**************************************************************************/ > Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 > 949 Turner Quay fax: > 407-746-3775 > Jupiter, FL 33458 > e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org > -My opinions are my own- > /**************************************************************************/ > Sally A. McDonald Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle Dublin, OH 43017 From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Fri Mar 17 11:19:23 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 LAA21113 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:19:22 -0800 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id OAA12078; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 14:18:47 -0500 Date: 17 Mar 95 13:06:14 EST From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: ddd Subject: Volunteers to evaluate a WPS safety sheet program Message-ID: <950317180614_71154.2454_DHQ102-1@CompuServe.COM> I am looking for state regulatory and state Extension WPS professionals that would like to evaluate a WPS Safety Data Sheet (all label info but Use Directions) and Posting Sheet (all WPS info/product) database program. The data will be available by April 15th in computer form for evaluation. We are working with a number of EPA WPS professionals in Washington and in two regions and with several state regualtory WPS professionals to help build a document(s) that will ultimately serve as both an WPS enforcement tool and a information/training tool. The bottom-line: can we come up with a regulatory document that makes agriculture safer for the worker and make it easier to comply with WPS. If you send me your name, title, address and phone number - I will mail you a demo of this initial effort for you to evalaute hands-on. This will include both a set of WPS safety data sheets and WPS Posting Sheets and software to acess/print these documents. Several states have told me they want a system that has both of these WPS products with MSDSs. I have a MSDS database of 2500 ag pesticides that makes this possible. Find a product - then toggle to one of three products, or all three to print. Does your state have a particular need? Does your state need a specific document for use in compliance? Remember - a WPS compliance document program is covered by the 85/15 use of EPS funds to support WPS. Example of a regulatory problem that needs to be addressed: If EPA lowers or raises the REI for products on a given data (becomes a reg), which then will result in products in the channel of trade with both REI on the products, how woulthe updated WPS Safety Data Sheet deal with this? Date the sheet? Put out two sheets with both available if either is requested (printed), or a footnote or note put on the official WPS Safety Sheet stating that althought 4 REI is now th e rule as of a given date, that 12 REI was in effect up to that date, etc. We plan to work directly with EPA (hdqts & regions) and with state regulatory offices to keep the data up-to-date. Does your state or regional office want safety Sheets for all chemicals, not just WPS ag chemicals? We need to make the safety sheets and posting sheets into several languages and EPA may find a way to fund this - no promises. Any ideas - suggestions of professionals that can handle this translation once we tackle this issue? What languages must we address? Do you know anyone that would help evaluate or need such a WPS product? Tell them to contact me at 404/992-5773 - Dr. Earl H. Tryon From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Fri Mar 17 15:14:22 1995 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA29482 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:14:20 -0800 From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.11/UCD3.4) id PAA14725; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:13:51 -0800 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:13:51 -0800 Message-Id: <199503172313.PAA14725@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject:message from fresno Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu UC's Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project recently "deputized" me a front-line cooperative extension farm advisor permitted to do WPS field worker "train-the-trainer" programs. My authority hinges on using UCIPM's half-day format and instructional materials, with classes limited to 25. Although not present, I was honored to learn of the strong support I had at Fresno County Farm Bureau's March 7 Board of Directors meeting concerning my local train-the-trainer "legalization." ... Forty five newsletter subscribers have joined my California "Directory of WPS-Qualified Field Worker Pesticide Safety Trainers" for hire or gratis. Contact me for a copy. Steve Sutter, UC Area Personnel Management Farm Advisor (209) 456-7560 ... "Fresno Clear." From pbaker@ag.Arizona.EDU Mon Mar 20 16:28:40 1995 Received: from ag.Arizona.EDU (Ag.Arizona.EDU [128.196.42.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA24112 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 16:28:38 -0800 Received: from ag.Arizona.EDU by ag.Arizona.EDU (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA17785; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 17:28:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 17:28:29 -0700 (MST) From: Paul B Baker To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS In-Reply-To: <199503161719.JAA24277@igc3.igc.apc.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Jeff, I am not sure of the document you cite but the dollar figure is close (45). I heard this figure in a number of discussions. I really wish it were not true, because your right it makes me question the total document. I would really appreciate someone telling me how they arrived at that figure and how (EPA) figured it would take about 20 minutes to do the presentation. Paul Baker (602) 621-4012 Pesticide Coordinator's Office (602) 621-4013 FAX Department of Entomology pbaker@ag.arizona.edu University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Woody wrote: > >3. EPA developed a detailed cost/benefit analysis (over 200 pages > >long) that estimated the costs to affected agricultural sectors > >attributable to each provision in the revised rule. EPA also estimated > >the benefits to persons (mainly agricultural workers and pesticide > >handlers) who would receive the protections under the WPS. EPA negotiated > > Without having read (or wanting to read) all 200 pages, I had heard a rumor > that EPA estimated that the average annual grower cost in real dollars was > something like $48. Is this true? If so, I wouldn't take much stock in the > rest of the report anyway. This is easily eaten up by paying labor and > travel time for 1 (admittedly well paid) farm manager to a single > train-the-trainer course. Things that make you say hmmmm. > /**************************************************************************/ > Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 > 949 Turner Quay fax: > 407-746-3775 > Jupiter, FL 33458 > e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org > -My opinions are my own- > /**************************************************************************/ > > From SIESNET.SIES1.ALFRENCH@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Tue Mar 21 10:08:06 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA06767 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:08:05 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:07:21 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:08:58 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS -Reply On March 20, 1995, Paul Baker stated: >I would really appreciate someone telling me how they arrived at that< >figure and how (EPA) figured it would take about 20 minutes to do< >the presentation.< The average cost per farm can be derived from the EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis' (RIA) as follows: Per worker cost of full WPS training = 30 minutes time for a worker and a supervisor ($2.50 + $3.25) plus 15 cents for training materials or a total cost of $5.90 per worker. Per worker incremental cost for workers covered by OSHA or State right-to-know laws = $1.18. 60 percent of workers trained at $1.18 each; 40 percent trained at $5.90 each for total first year incremental worker training cost of $2.6 million. The total cost is $5 million. Similar estimates for handlers yields total cost of $8.6 million and incremental cost of $5.7 million. Thus the total training cost estimate was $13.6 million with an incremental cost estimate of $8.3 million. (These numbers became $14.2 and $8.5 in the summary). Dividing the $8.3 million incremental training cost estimate by the total number of farms (696,500) yields an average incremental training cost of $11.90 per farm. For purposes of estimating the per farm expense of providing full WPS training, one might use the total cost estimate of $13.6 million divided by the number of farms who hire workers and use pesticides (309,098). This would yield an average training expense of $44 per farm. I suspect this is the basis of the $45 figure that you have heard. From the foregoing one can see that it is important to distinguish between "total costs" (sometimes called "actual costs") and "incremental costs" (also referred to as "actual costs") There also appears to be some confusion between the total WPS cost and the cost of the training component. According to the RIA, the training component is about ten percent of the total WPS cost. Your second issue: In the proposed revision of the training grace period EPA stated: "EPA's worker training program was field tested in both English and Spanish, and, with questions, took approximately 30 minutes." I hope this helps. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Wed Mar 22 07:15:02 1995 Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (root@lamar.ColoState.EDU [129.82.103.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA25978 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 07:15:01 -0800 Received: from [129.82.119.155] by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA99473; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 08:14:54 -0700 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 08:19:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Steven E. Newman" Sender: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Reply-To: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Message-Id: <29976.newman@lamar.colostate.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: Volunteers to evaluate a WPS safety sheet program Carolyn, I would be willing to look at the material that you are preparing Steve In message Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:19:45 -0800, Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> writes: > I am looking for state regulatory and state Extension WPS professionals > that would like to evaluate a WPS Safety Data Sheet (all label info but > Use Directions) and Posting Sheet (all WPS info/product) database > program. The data will be available by April 15th in computer form for > evaluation. > We are working with a number of EPA WPS professionals in Washington and > in two regions and with several state regualtory WPS professionals to > help build a document(s) that will ultimately serve as both an WPS > enforcement tool and a information/training tool. The bottom-line: can > we come up with a regulatory document that makes agriculture safer for > the worker and make it easier to comply with WPS. > > If you send me your name, title, address and phone number - I will mail > you a demo of this initial effort for you to evalaute hands-on. This > will include both a set of WPS safety data sheets and WPS Posting Sheets > and software to acess/print these documents. Several states have told me > they want a system that has both of these WPS products with MSDSs. I > have a MSDS database of 2500 ag pesticides that makes this possible. > Find a product - then toggle to one of three products, or all three to > print. > Does your state have a particular need? Does your state need a specific > document for use in compliance? Remember - a WPS compliance document > program is covered by the 85/15 use of EPS funds to support WPS. > > Example of a regulatory problem that needs to be addressed: > If EPA lowers or raises the REI for products on a given data (becomes a > reg), which then will result in products in the channel of trade with > both REI on the products, how woulthe updated WPS Safety Data Sheet deal > with this? Date the sheet? Put out two sheets with both available if > either is requested (printed), or a footnote or note put on the official > WPS Safety Sheet stating that althought 4 REI is now th e rule as of a > given date, that 12 REI was in effect up to that date, etc. > > We plan to work directly with EPA (hdqts & regions) and with state > regulatory offices to keep the data up-to-date. > > Does your state or regional office want safety Sheets for all chemicals, > not just WPS ag chemicals? > > We need to make the safety sheets and posting sheets into several > languages and EPA may find a way to fund this - no promises. Any ideas - > suggestions of professionals that can handle this translation once we > tackle this issue? What languages must we address? > > Do you know anyone that would help evaluate or need such a WPS product? > Tell them to contact me at 404/992-5773 - Dr. Earl H. Tryon > ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | | Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | | Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | |___________________________________________________________________________| From woodard@igc.apc.org Thu Mar 23 08:45:58 1995 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA20299 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 08:45:57 -0800 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.11/Revision: 1.194 ) with SMTP id IAA07372 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 08:43:31 -0800 Received: from ppp16.igc.org (woodard@ppp16.igc.org [198.94.6.16]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.6.11/Revision: 1.4 ) with SMTP id IAA16359; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 08:41:20 -0800 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 08:41:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199503231641.IAA16359@igc3.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS -Reply Cc: cmellinger@igc.apc.org, mmellinger@igc.apc.org, gfrantz@igc.apc.org, llucas@igc.apc.org, bmathews@igc.apc.org Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org Al French says: > The average cost per farm can be derived from the EPA Regulatory >Impact Analysis' (RIA) as follows: > Per worker incremental cost for workers covered by OSHA or State >right-to-know laws = $1.18. I had understood from previous posted discussions that OSHA regulations didn't apply where any other regulatory agency regulations applied (namely EPA WPS)? I can see where state right-to-know laws (more stringent than Federal WPS) would need some cost accounting though, however, is the Federal WPS RIA the proper place to cost these? > From the foregoing one can see that it is important to distinguish >between "total costs" (sometimes called "actual costs") and >"incremental costs" (also referred to as "actual costs") Wow, you lost me on this one, if total costs and incremental costs are both actual costs, why is it so important to distinguish between the two? I guess I still don't understand 'incremental' costs. I was thinking that was a per worker added cost, but after reading this, it looks like it's a per year cost (for re-training or new training ?). Would you mind terribly explaining the difference with a little more detail? I don't think I'm being dense, but maybe others in the group don't understand either. > There also appears to be some confusion between the total WPS cost >and the cost of the training component. According to the RIA, the >training component is about ten percent of the total WPS cost. That makes sense - most of the regulatory people that put on information seminars would have been primarily concerned with training, and the $44-45 figure that we've heard came from what stuck in the 'trainers' mind, that only included training. OK, that would make the total annual grower cost estimate at $440-450. > Your second issue: In the proposed revision of the training grace >period EPA stated: "EPA's worker training program was field tested in >both English and Spanish, and, with questions, took approximately 30 >minutes." I would agree, the training session for our employees took about 30 minutes, plus maybe another 15 minutes to get everybody topped off with coffee, sat down, and quiet. /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Mar 23 12:53:47 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA27895 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 12:53:45 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 12:54:27 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: archive additions Two files have been added to the WPS-Forum archive. One is the formal comment filed by the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA), in response to the EPA proposal (January 11, 1995) to allow reduction of the Restricted Entry Interval for certain pesticide products. Thanks to Ray McAllister for providing. Name of the file in archive is "rei-com.acp", and its size is 7,700 bytes. The second new item contains the names, addresses, phone and fax numbers of (1) EPA Regional WPS contact persons (updated 3/95), and (2) state WPS contact persons (updated 10/94). This is the same information, in a single file, that Jane Horton provided and Jim Brackeen then posted in reader-friendly ASCII form last week. File name is "contacts.wps", and size is 18,500 bytes. To obtain a copy of any file, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM Howard Rosenberg From SIESNET.SIES1.alfrench@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Thu Mar 23 15:21:11 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA03565 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 15:21:05 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 18:20:52 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 18:22:32 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: COST/BENEFIT OF THE WPS -Reply -Reply On March 23, 1995 Jeff Woodward wrote: >I had understood from previous posted discussions that OSHA< >regulations didn't apply where any other regulatory agency< >regulations applied (namely EPA WPS)?< That's correct. OSHA regs don't apply to pesticide applications because these are covered by EPA's WPS. But OSHA regualtions still apply to any other hazardous chemicals (e.g., gasoline) on farms. >if total costs and incremental costs are both actual costs, why is it so< >important to distinguish between the two? I guess I still don't< >understand 'incremental' costs. Would you mind terribly explaining< >the difference with a little more detail?< Oops, I thought I was clarifying matters. One's "actual" cost may depend on one's perspective. Assuming EPA's expense estimates are correct, an employer could look at his total training outlay and say that s/he must pay for an additional half hour of worker time and a half hour of trainer time plus 15 cents for materials, so the "actual" cost is $5.90 per worker. Someone else, looking at the incremental cost could say that sixty percent of employers would have to provide HazCom training anyway, so their "actual" cost, i.e. additional outlay, for WPS training is only $1.18. EPA's RIA put it both ways and the costs discussed in the rule are primarily incremental costs and are identified as such. >OK, (training being about 10%) that would make the total annual< >grower cost estimate at $440-450.< Well, it depends upon how you figure it. EPA estimated the total cost to farms to be $178.9 million (training $14.2) and an incremental cost of $75.6 million (training $8.5). The training proportions are 7.9% and 11.2% respectively--I called these "about" 10%. If you divide the total WPS cost among the 309,098 farms that use pesticides and hire workers the cost would be $578 per farm. If you divide the total cost among 696,500 (all non-livestock) farms, the cost per farm would be $257. The average incremental WPS cost would be $245 among those farms that use pesticides and hire labor and $109 among all farms. One could say the "actual" average WPS cost is as much as $578 or as little as $109. That's why it is important to distinguish whether total cost or incremental cost is meant. It was probably something like this that led Will Rogers (Mark Twain?) to comment on "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I hope this helps, rather than adds to the confusion. Do you see why you need us bureaucrats? Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Fri Mar 24 07:19:44 1995 Received: from VMS1.TAMU.EDU (VMS1.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.13]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA05662 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 07:19:43 -0800 Received: from [165.91.64.119] by 165.91.64.119 with SMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 9:18:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:17:38 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: pesticide regs Can anyone tell me what regulations cover the use of pesticides used on plants frown for botanical gardens and other non-profit uses? I understand these sites are exempted from WPS regulations. Also, where would I get a copy of any regs that apply to these sites? \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ Steve Stauffer (409)693-0114 \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ From drmcpherson@efdnorth.navfac.navy.mil Fri Mar 24 07:35:12 1995 Received: from vines.efdnorth.navfac.navy.mil (vines.efdnorth.navfac.navy.mil [199.99.212.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA05847 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 07:35:10 -0800 From: drmcpherson@efdnorth.navfac.navy.mil Received: by vines.efdnorth.navfac.navy.mil; Fri, 24 Mar 95 10:34:49 EST Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 10:34:11 EST Message-ID: To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: re: pesticide regs X-Incognito-SN: 413 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=1.71 ENCRYPTED=NO THE REGS ARE USUALLY STATE SPECIFIC From newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Fri Mar 24 09:58:41 1995 Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (root@lamar.ColoState.EDU [129.82.103.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA09681 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:58:40 -0800 Received: from [129.82.119.155] by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA145299; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 10:58:34 -0700 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:03:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Steven E. Newman" Sender: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Reply-To: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Message-Id: <39795.newman@lamar.colostate.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: pesticide regs Steve, It has been our experience that botanical gardens and other non-profit institutions are not exempt from WPS regulations. Follow all guidelines as written....The only items that I am aware of that are exempt from worker protection laws are experimental pesticides that do not have a lable, but in an attempt to obey the intent of the law, one should use the MSDS sheet and interpret how it should be handled in reference to REI, etc. Steve Newman In message Fri, 24 Mar 1995 07:19:54 -0800, rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) writes: > Can anyone tell me what regulations cover the use of pesticides used on > plants frown for botanical gardens and other non-profit uses? I understand > these sites are exempted from WPS regulations. Also, where would I get a > copy of any regs that apply to these sites? > > \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ > Steve Stauffer (409)693-0114 > \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ > ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | | Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | | Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | |___________________________________________________________________________| From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Mar 24 11:08:37 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA11853 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:08:36 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:09:17 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: pesticide regs, resp. to Steve Stauffer >Can anyone tell me what regulations cover the use of pesticides used on >plants grown for botanical gardens and other non-profit uses? I understand >these sites are exempted from WPS regulations. Steve, A nursery supervisor in San Francisco Park & Rec. Dept. asked me a similar question last Summer, and the best I could find out by calling around was that the WPS _probably_ didn't apply to non-commercial nurseries. Referred him to EPA staff and never followed up. Then in September, Charles Nagamine (charlie@hpirs.stjohn.hawaii.edu), who had also dealt with the issue, put a quite relevant and informative post on the forum. A copy is below: ---------------------------------------------- QUESTION: Aren't nurseries on operations such as golf courses, resorts, and shopping malls exempt from WPS regulations if treated plants are not resold but are used on their premises? 170.3 states definition of NURSERY: any operation engaged in the outdoor production of any agricultural plant to produce cut flowers and ferns or plants that will be used in their entirety in another location. Such plants include, but are not limited to: flowering and foliage plants or trees; tree seedlings; live Christmas trees; vegetable, fruit, and ornamental transplants; and turfgrass produced for sod. The plants in question are not be used in another location. They are used on the operation's premises. WPS does not apply when a pesticide is applied on an agricultural establishment in 10 circumstances. 170.102 (b) Exception (3) On plants grown for other than commercial or research purposes, which may include plants in habitations, home fruit and vegetable gardens and home greenhouses. Exception (4) On plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, and public or private lawns and grounds that are intended only for aesthetic purposes or climatic modification. The plants in question are not used in commerce (resale). They are used in the landscape for aesthetic or climatic modifcation purposes. The Agency, in their summary of public comments and Agency response, has stated the following: Public areas and residential uses: The Agency proposed to exempt pesticide uses in malls, atria, or office buildings where agricultural plants are present primarily for aesthetic or climatic modifications and in and around habitations or non-commercial crop or ornamnetal gardens, in non-commercial greenhouses, or on lawns, shrubs or trees. Although there were no comments that addressed these exemptions specifically, there were many comments that stated that all pesticide handlers should be covered by these regulations. The Agency is concerned that the use of pesticides under such conditions, including use by homeowner, may vary substantially from those in agriculture and therefore require the development of different standards. The Agency will gather information on the worker exposures related to these uses and assess the merits of Including these uses in part 170 or in a separate regulatlon, at a later time. Until that time non-commercial crops and greenhouses, etc. look to be exempt. ---------------------------------------------- Howard Rosenberg From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Mar 24 11:29:13 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 LAA12525 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:29:12 -0800 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id OAA21532; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 14:28:08 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA796083960; Fri, 24 Mar 95 14:18:22 EST Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 14:18:22 EST Message-Id: <9502247960.AA796083960@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: pesticide regs, resp. to Steve Stauffer Steve... Howard is correct. Check out Page 17 in the "How to Comply" Manual... it speaks of what uses are not covered. Judy Smith From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Fri Mar 24 22:34:47 1995 Received: from VMS2.TAMU.EDU (VMS2.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.14]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id WAA03836 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:34:46 -0800 Received: from [165.91.64.91] by 165.91.64.91 with SMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:41:45 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:40:43 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: RE: pesticide regs >Steve, > >It has been our experience that botanical gardens and other non-profit >institutions are not exempt from WPS regulations. You may be right, but I am referring to the copy of the Federal Record from August, 1992, in which it states that WPS regs apply to 'agricultural establishments' that produce or maintain plants for profit for research purposes. It then specifically states that "...structures such as malls, atriums, conservatories, arboretums, or office buildings where agricultural plants are present primarily for aesthetic or climatic modification..." are not considered agricultural establishments. Perhaps the regs have been modified since they were originally published? \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ Steve Stauffer (409)693-0114 \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Fri Mar 24 22:34:48 1995 Received: from VMS2.TAMU.EDU (VMS2.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.14]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id WAA03837 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:34:47 -0800 Received: from [165.91.64.91] by 165.91.64.91 with SMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:41:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:40:55 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: Re: pesticide regs, resp. to Steve Stauffer > Steve... > > Howard is correct. Check out Page 17 in the "How to Comply" > Manual... it speaks of what uses are not covered. > > Judy Smith Thanks Judy. Where do I get a copy if the 'how to comply' manual? Also, does this mean that any regulations are up to individual states? \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ Steve Stauffer (409)693-0114 \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Fri Mar 24 22:38:08 1995 Received: from VMS2.TAMU.EDU (VMS2.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.14]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id WAA03889 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:38:07 -0800 Received: from [165.91.64.91] by 165.91.64.91 with SMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:41:51 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:40:49 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: Re: pesticide regs, resp. to Steve Stauffer >The Agency is concerned that the use of pesticides under such conditions, >including use by homeowner, may vary substantially from those in >agriculture and therefore require the development of different standards. >The Agency will gather information on the worker exposures related to these >uses and assess the merits of Including these uses in part 170 or in a >separate regulatlon, at a later time. > >Until that time non-commercial crops and greenhouses, etc. look to be >exempt. > ---------------------------------------------- > > >Howard Rosenberg Thanks for the informative reply. That's the conclusion I reached upon reading 170.3. That leaves me with the question, what regulations govern the use of pesticides in these non-commercial sites? Is it strictly up to the state, or are there other federal regs that apply? \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ Steve Stauffer (409)693-0114 \_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ From 71154.2454@compuserve.com Mon Mar 27 04:52:35 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 EAA20954 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 04:52:35 -0800 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id HAA07756; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 07:52:03 -0500 Date: 27 Mar 95 07:49:41 EST From: Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> To: ddd Subject: Define "Common name" for classifying pesticides Message-ID: <950327124940_71154.2454_DHQ53-1@CompuServe.COM> I need help! All pesticides covered under WPS were named in a list from EPA with a chemical code number, a CAS number and a "Common name". The Common name is often used or defined by EPA as the active ingredient A.I. The common name is critical in triggerng WPS specifics about pesticides. Wwhat is the common name? Is it an OSHA term for grouping chmeicals? Who determines the common name when it is not even a part of the A.I.? How can we get a complete list of common names for the pesticides covered under WPS? The list provided with PR Notice 93-7 is incomplete - and without the Trade name to link to some common names - it is impossible to determine which common name pertains to which pesticide products. Any advice will be appreciated - Dr. Earl Tryon - phone:904/992-5773 From newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Mon Mar 27 07:58:47 1995 Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (root@lamar.ColoState.EDU [129.82.103.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA22377 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 07:58:46 -0800 Received: from [129.82.119.155] by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA63817; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 08:58:40 -0700 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:03:30 -0600 (CST) From: "Steven E. Newman" Sender: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Reply-To: newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Message-Id: <32612.newman@lamar.colostate.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: Define "Common name" for classifying pesticides There is a CD-ROM disk distributed by Silver Platter called "Pest Bank" and it is probably the most complete tool available for cross indexing pesticides. Its only drawback is its price tag, which is entirely prohibitive for most, including me. Steve Newman In message Mon, 27 Mar 1995 04:52:48 -0800, Carolyn Tryon <71154.2454@compuserve.com> writes: > I need help! > > All pesticides covered under WPS were named in a list from EPA with a > chemical code number, a CAS number and a "Common name". The Common name > is often used or defined by EPA as the active ingredient A.I. > The common name is critical in triggerng WPS specifics about pesticides. > Wwhat is the common name? Is it an OSHA term for grouping chmeicals? Who > determines the common name when it is not even a part of the A.I.? > How can we get a complete list of common names for the pesticides covered > under WPS? The list provided with PR Notice 93-7 is incomplete - and > without the Trade name to link to some common names - it is impossible to > determine which common name pertains to which pesticide products. > Any advice will be appreciated - > Dr. Earl Tryon - phone:904/992-5773 > ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman Tel: 303-491-7118 | | Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Department of Horticulture E-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Colorado State University CompuServe: 71563,2563 | | Fort Collins CO 80523-1173 | |___________________________________________________________________________| From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Mar 27 21:09:38 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 VAA07511 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 21:09:37 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id AAA15136; Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:09:06 -0500 Date: 28 Mar 95 00:08:03 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Federal RUP Records Message-ID: <950328050803_73507.555_HHB77-1@CompuServe.COM> I have been seeing articles about the USDA reducing the time period for growers to record restricted use pesticide applications from 30 days to 14 days. All of this has sort of blown by California because the state already requires growers to keep records of all agricultural pesticide use. Can anyone tell me how this is related to the WPS? Have the USDA and USEPA acted in concert here or is each agency pursuing its own course? Why is the USDA requiring pesticide use records to be kept and not the USEPA? I once heard that the USEPA cannot require growers to keep records. Is that true? I have always thought it strange that the WPS requires the "display" of application information for only such a short time. Unless records are required to be kept for a longer period, the investigation of possible pesticide related illnesses could be difficult. ****************************************************************** "Men hate the truth. They would rather meet a tiger in the road." - Robinson Jeffers Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Mar 28 10:16:41 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.38] (gia3mac28.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA15107 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 1995 10:16:38 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 10:16:40 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Training Verification Melanie Zavala (MZAVLA@UCIPM.UCDAVIS.EDU) sent the following message that did not get into the mailing list, so I am re-posting it. Dana Keil, Mailing List Manager, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley ----- resent message follows ------ Thoughts on the Issuing of Training Verification Cards I strongly favor the issuing of training verification cards to workers for several reasons, and would like to use this forum to try to convince potential trainers to issue them. During the past several months we have been providing training for people who plan to train farm workers according to the federal worker protection standards. In talking to our program participants we have found that prospective trainers have mixed feelings about participating in the voluntary training verification program. Some are especially hesitant about issuing the training verification cards to trained workers. This response is generally based on two concerns. One concern is that if an employer provides the required training to workers and issues cards, this will allow future employers of the trained workers to avoid the inconvenience of retraining. The argument is that it is unfair for an employer to train a worker and issue a card if the worker may later be hired by a new employer who is saved the trouble of retraining. The second concern is that if an employer or other trainer trains a worker and issues a signed training verification card, the trainer runs the risk of liability if the worker gets injured or poisoned by pesticides and attributes the incident to inadequate training. I will attempt to refute these concerns. The first one is relatively easy to address. Many workers, especially those employed by labor contractors, frequently change jobs. As most of you know, it is likely that the 15 day grace period for training will be eliminated, and all workers in your employ will have to be trained even if they are there only a few days. If these workers do not have a way of proving that they have been trained, employers with a very transient workforce may conceivably have to begin each workday with a training session for new workers. If such training is not provided, and employers has no way to prove that new workers were trained by a previous employer, the potential for fines, and for increased liability in case of an injury, will be considerable. Employers who take the requirements seriously, and train each new worker, may even end up training the same person several times in a single work season, as that worker leaves and then re-enters that person's employ. If, on the other hand, employer trainers issue training verification cards both workers and employers benefit. New workers can be hired without labor contractors and other employers having to constantly re-provide the required training. The second concern has to do with potential liability related to the issuing of training cards. But does the issuing of training verification cards increase a trainer's vulnerability to legal repercussions? I don't think so. (Here comes the disclaimer.) I'm not a lawyer, and if you have doubts about potential liability you should certainly talk to your lawyer, but as nearly as I can see, a current or past employer who has provided the required WPS training, runs more risk of legal problems without the backing of the voluntary training verification program and the issuing of the cards. There is no specific regulations on how to maintain training records apart from the voluntary training verification program. But, because you are required by the WPS to make sure that all of your workers have received pesticide safety training, if you provide that training you need to be able to prove it. Obviously, this will require some kind of documentation. At the very least, if you are asked about worker training by your local agricultural enforcement agency, you will have to acknowledge that you provided the training. Therefore, in case of a pesticide-related injury at your workplace, it appears as if you will have the same potential for liability whether or not you provided the training card. The situation is still the same if you train an employee who then gets a new job. Suppose the new employer asks your ex-worker about training, and the worker replies that he was trained by you. If that worker has a pesticide-related injury, and the question of inadequate training becomes an issue, not having issued the card will not protect you. If you deny having trained the worker, you are admitting non-compliance with the WPS because you had a untrained worker in your employ. If you say that you did train the worker, you have the same potential for liability whether or not you issued the worker a card. Actually, you are probably more protected from liability if you become part of the training verification program, because by doing so, you agree to use only approved training materials. By using non-approved materials, you run the risk of having them deemed inadequate in case of legal scrutiny. I hope I have managed to dispel some of the concerns regarding issuing of training verification cards, because I would really like to see everyone become part of the verification program and provide workers with the means to prove that they have been trained. Without some visible proof of training, the worker training requirement could easily become one of the many laws that is "on the books" but not really enforced or enforceable. If this happens, training will only be questioned in case of an injury, and some employer, somewhere, will find him or herself in serious trouble for not complying with a law that no one else is complying with either. Laws that are not being generally enforced are often an open invitation to liability suits. Issuance of a card will help assure that training really takes place. This protects the employer, and provides the trained worker with a credential that can enhance his or her employability, and demonstrates employer concern for the health and safety of workers. As I see it, issuing training verification cards will help both workers and agricultural employers. The Worker Protection Standard had brought with it increased effort on the part of everyone involved in agriculture, so let's do everything possible to make sure it brings some benefits as well. From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Mar 28 11:37:25 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA17046 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 1995 11:37:13 -0800 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA28743; Tue, 28 Mar 1995 11:37:04 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 11:37:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199503281937.LAA28743@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (Gregorio Billikopf-Encina) Subject: Fieldworker Trainer Training Cc: ce-cdirectors@ucdavis.edu, pmarer@ucipm.ucdavis.edu X-Mailer: What: WPS Train-the-Trainer workshop Where: Modesto, 733 County Center 3 (corner of Scenic & Oakdale) When: June 1, 1995, 8:30 am - 4 pm Cost: $20, includes lunch and materials Language: SPANISH only Instructors: Gregorio Billikopf & Jesus Valencia, Farm Advisors Pre-registration: REQUIRED, call Melynda Ange at (209) 525-6654 Certificate: UC IPM certificate + EPA WPS blue card given for more information call Melynda at 209-525-6654 Best wishes, Gregorio ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From shenkm@ava.bcc.orst.edu Tue Mar 28 16:46:25 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 QAA24821 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 1995 16:46:20 -0800 Received: from [128.193.88.177] by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29013; Tue, 28 Mar 95 16:48:06 PST From: "Myron Shenk" Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 16:48:20 CST Message-Id: <60501.shenkm@bcc.orst.edu> X-Popmail-Charset: English To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Contractor Central Posting A Processor (Canary) fieldman called with the following scenario/ questions: The Processor contracts with growers who plant what and when the Processor dictates. The Processor provides scouting service, but the growers are free to utilize any legal pest management practices they chose. The Processor understands that Oregon OSHA requires (and the Processor desires to do such, as well) the Processor to maintain a central posting at the Processor's facilities, listing all pesticide treatments that contracted farmers have applied. I do not see where the HTC Manual suggests that the Processor would have to utilize central posting at their office for the protection of their scouts going out to growers fields. I understand that the grower has this obligation. Is OR-OSHA correct in suggesting that the Processor must post at their central location? I see some logistical problems in receiving all this information from dozens of growers. It looks more than difficult to me, but the Processor is proceeding with their plans, but are requesting a meeting with me in two days to get the facts 'straight from the horse's mouth., Unfortunately, I last saw the horse galloping North, and I appear to be mounted backwards on it!! Thanks. Myron Shenk. Myron Shenk (503)737-6274 Internet: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu IPPC Cordley Hall, Rm 2040 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2915 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Mar 29 12:34:47 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA11875 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:34:45 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:35:27 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: IGW Q&A now in archive; HTC there too Preparation of an ASCII-format version of the EPA Interpretative Guidance Workgroup's Questions and Answers about the WPS is now complete, and the "IGW Q&A document" that has been mentioned in a few posts is available in the WPS-Forum archive. In addition to interpretations made by the IGW through 3/15/95, content of this reference includes text of the cover memo transmitting the printed Q&A to EPA regional offices, names of IGW members, a table of contents, an introductory statement, and a detailed index. Name of the file in archive is "igw-q+a1.epa", and its size is 153k bytes. Thanks to Judy Smith for providing the original files containing this information. Last week Steve Stauffer asked about where to get the "How to Comply" manual. In responding to him privately I realized that other forum participants who subscribed in recent months may also be unaware that an ASCII version of HTC was placed in the forum archive last Fall. It is available both as a single file and as a series of three. The file "htc_all" (size 172k bytes) contains the entire manual. The file "htc_1of3" (size 49k bytes) contains the Note, Prefatory pages, Contents, Unit 1, and Unit 2. The file "htc_2of3" (size 62k bytes) contains Unit 3 and Unit 4. The file "htc_3of3" (size 60k bytes) contains Unit 5, Unit 6, Appendix A, and Appendix B. To obtain a copy of any file in the archive, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM --Howard Rosenberg From woodard@igc.apc.org Fri Mar 31 10:34:35 1995 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:52:33 -0800 From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) To: wps-forum Subject: Re: Training Verification Message-ID: Dana Keil Says: > As I see it, issuing training verification cards will help both >workers and agricultural employers. The Worker Protection Standard had >brought with it increased effort on the part of everyone involved in >agriculture, so let's do everything possible to make sure it brings some >benefits as well. One issue about training verification brought up at one of the grower meetings here was that it was likely that once the cards were issued, they would be 'passed' down the hiring line, and used by workers who were not trained and issued the card. If it's already done with visas, 'green' cards, and drivers liscences, why not WPS training cards? The enforcement person's response was to train all workers regardless of whether they had a card or not. The justification was that the employer was still liable (in case of an accident) even if the employee had lied about being trained. Realisticly (IMHO of course), workers may perceive that employers are reluctant to make the expenditure on training new employees, which would provide incentive for them to 'borrow' somebody elses card so they will be more employable. I do agree with most of the points, and that the cards are a good idea, but given any system, somebody will try to bypass it. /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From woodard@igc.apc.org Fri Mar 31 10:34:35 1995 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 12:01:39 -0800 From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) To: wps-forum Subject: Re: Contractor Central Posting Message-ID: Myron Shenk says: >treatments that contracted farmers have applied. I do not see where the >HTC Manual suggests that the Processor would have to utilize central >posting at their office for the protection of their scouts going out to >growers fields. I understand that the grower has this obligation. Is >OR-OSHA correct in suggesting that the Processor must post at their >central location? I see some logistical problems in receiving all this >information from dozens of growers. It looks more than difficult to me, I'm not sure about OR-OSHA specific regulations, but since the 'scouts/agricultural consultants' work for somebody other than the grower, and scout presumably for several growers, they would fall into the crop advisor exemption. While HTC says advisors have to centrally post the information currently, Federal EPA has told the states that crop advisors are currently not an 'enforcement priority', until the revised crop advisor exemption goes into effect (Potentially) Jan 1, 1996. How your state handles this is basically up to them. See the archives of this list for the complete text of the proposed exemption. As for crop advisors feasably posting all re-entry information for all of the farms they scout, I think we would soon be under a pile of paper over 7 feet thick that would cover the state of Montana, not to mention out of business...... /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov Fri Mar 31 10:34:35 1995 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 15:31:07 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Training Verification -Reply Message-ID: Woody said: >The enforcement person's response was to train all workers< >regardless of whether they had a card or not. The justification was< >that the employer was still liable (in case of an accident) even if the< >employee had lied about being trained.< But wouldn't the employer have the same liability in the event of an accident regardless of whether he trained the worker or relied on a WPS verificaition card? Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov Fri Mar 31 10:34:35 1995 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 15:45:07 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Contractor Central Posting -Reply Message-ID: Woody said: As for crop advisors feasably posting all re-entry information for all of the farms they scout, I think we would soon be under a pile of paper over 7 feet thick that would cover the state of Montana, not to mention out of business...... See page 96 of the "How To Comply" Manual which states: "Employers of independent (commercial) crop advisors do NOT have to provide their crop advisors with information at a central location." (Emphasis in original). Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Worker Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Fri Mar 31 10:34:35 1995 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:40:54 -1000 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" To: wps forum Subject: Training materials and the ADA Message-ID: Someone has informed me that Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that television and videoprograms produced by local or state governments should be captioned for the hearing imparired. He specifically raises issue with the training tape produced by the University of Idaho. I am not familiar with the ADA and would appreciate any thoughts on this matter. Is this for real? Gerald Hawaii Department of Agriculture From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Mar 30 17:31:15 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.38] (gia3mac28.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA09382 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 1995 17:31:12 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 17:31:14 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: update of the list processor software We have updated the automated software system that handles the subscription, message and file requests for the WPS-Forum. We hope that the change will not be accompanied by any difficulties, but that is often a possibility so please bear with any "update pains" that may be experienced. Yours, Dana Keil, Mailing List Manager -- Dana E. Keil Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics dana@are.Berkeley.EDU University of California, Berkeley From RUTHM@mces.msstate.edu Fri Mar 31 06:36:40 1995 Received: from Tut.MsState.Edu (root@Tut.MsState.Edu [130.18.80.36]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA16086 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 06:36:39 -0800 Received: from MCES.MsState.Edu (CharonPC.MCES.MsState.Edu [130.18.148.4]); by Tut.MsState.Edu using SMTP (8.6.10/6.5m-FWP); id IAA24443; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 08:36:37 -0600 Received: from MCES/MAILQUEUE by MCES.MsState.Edu (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 31 Mar 95 8:36:36 GMT+6 Received: from MAILQUEUE by MCES (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 31 Mar 95 8:36:23 GMT+6 From: "Ruth Morgan" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 08:36:22 CST Subject: Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: Howard, What special priviledges are required to get archieved files from WPS- forum? Each time I send a request, I get a message saying special priviledges are required? ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Morgan Pesticide Coordinator and Pesticide Impact Assessment Specialist Mississippi State University FAX: (601) 325-5204 PHONE: (601) 325-8601 EMAIL: ruthm@mces.msstate.edu From woodard@igc.apc.org Fri Mar 31 06:43:58 1995 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA16193 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 06:43:57 -0800 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.195 ) with SMTP id GAA15030 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 06:43:19 -0800 Received: from ppp35.igc.org (woodard@ppp35.igc.org [198.94.6.35]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.6 ) with SMTP id GAA29168 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 06:43:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 06:43:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199503311443.GAA29168@igc3.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: Training Verification -Reply Sender: woodard@igc.org >Woody said: >>The enforcement person's response was to train all workers< >>regardless of whether they had a card or not. The justification was< >>that the employer was still liable (in case of an accident) even if the< >>employee had lied about being trained.< > >But wouldn't the employer have the same liability in the event of an >accident regardless of whether he trained the worker or relied on a >WPS verificaition card? Oops, what I meant to say (instead of still liable) was: subject to additional WPS non-compliance fines. /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From SIESNET.SIES1.alfrench@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Fri Mar 31 09:07:29 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA18327 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:07:26 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:06:55 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:08:26 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Federal RUP Records -Reply On March 28, 1995 Bob Roach said: >I have been seeing articles about the USDA reducing the time period < >for growers to record restricted use pesticide applications from 30 < >days to 14 days.< This is true, effective May 11, 1995. >All of this has sort of blown by California because the state already< >requires growers to keep records of all agricultural pesticide use. < >Can anyone tell me how this is related to the WPS? < The pesticide use survey is intended primarily for food safety and water quality purposes. However, _summary_ pesticide information we obtain may be useful for WPS purposes also. Of course, USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service is prohibited from revealing, to anyone including persons within the government, information from individuals that participate in its surveys. Such information is strictly confidential and protected by severe penalties. For example, USDA could reveal that 26% of farmers use a particular pesticide, but we could not reveal whether a certain farmer was among that 26%. >Have the USDA and USEPA acted in concert here or is each agency < >pursuing its own course? < USDA and EPA are cooperating on this. >Why is the USDA requiring pesticide use records to be kept and not< >the USEPA? I once heard that the USEPA cannot require growers to< >keep records. Is that true? < FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) bars EPA from requiring recordkeeping by private applicators (primarily farmers). This is why Congress assigned the pesticide use survey to USDA. >I have always thought it strange that the WPS requires the "display"< >of application information for only such a short time. Unless records< >are required to be kept for a longer period, the investigation of< >possible pesticide related illnesses could be difficult.< As described above, EPA may not require such recordkeeping. However, the USDA rule requires retention of records for 2 years. Thus, pesticide information is recorded immediately because of the WPS, and maintained long term because of the USDA rule. I hope this helps. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Fri Mar 31 09:46:03 1995 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA19182 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:46:01 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 27878; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:43:15 +500 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:43:14 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098E2ED.747E9900.27878@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: RE: Federal RUP Records -Reply Just to add to the discussion, in doing grower meetings it has been confusing about what must be keep for recordkeeping and when and what must be posted at the central info site for workers. In Ohio, we have passed a new private applicator recordkeeping regulation that goes beyond the federal requirements. Although there is overlap some items are unique to both WPS and recordkeeping. I have developed a chart for our growers showing the comparison of items. For example, if you record all the info for recordkeeping, you would be missing REI's and the time that reentry is restricted. We believe that most growers won't want to keep two sets of record forms on pesticides so we have used this chart and sample forms to help them come up with one form that will cover both regulations. However, there is also confusion created because WPS applies to all pesticides--general and restricted use-- but recordkeeping applies only to RUP's. We do as a matter of practice encourage keeping records for all applications for many good management reasons. All in all it's been and interesting and challenging educational year! Joanne Kick-Raack Ohio State University Extension From SIESNET.SIES1.alfrench@SIES.WSC.AG.GOV Fri Mar 31 10:34:35 1995 Received: from SIES.WSC.AG.GOV ([199.128.64.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA20215 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:34:29 -0800 Received: from USDAHQ-Message_Server by SIES.WSC.AG.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:33:52 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:35:26 -0500 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Training Verification -Reply -Reply >>The enforcement person's response was to train all workers< >>regardless of whether they had a card or not. The justification was< >>>that the employer was still liable (in case of an accident) even if the< >>>employee had lied about being trained.< > >>But wouldn't the employer have the same liability in the event of an >>accident regardless of whether he trained the worker or relied on a >>WPS verificaition card? >Oops, what I meant to say (instead of still liable) was: subject to >additional WPS non-compliance fines. The purpose of the WPS training verification card is to relieve the burden of retraining from the employer. The WPS provides that If the worker posseses an EPA-approved training verification card, the training requirements will have been met and the employer is in compliance. However, in the case of a worker with a "borrowed" training card, an employer may not rely upon it if the name is inconsistent with the worker's identification documents. But if the WPS card appears to have been issued to the worker, and the employer has no other reason to know that it is not valid, then the employer may rely upon it. The WPS provides: "If the agricultural employer is aware or has reason to know that an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard worker training certificate has not been issued in accordance with this section, or has not been issued to the worker bearing the certificate, or the training was completed more than 5 years before the beginning of the current month, a worker's possession of that certificate does not meet the (training) requirements. . . ." (WPS page 38160) I can not imagine why any enforcement person would tell you to train all workers regardless of whether they had a card because that would subvert the clear purpose of the training verification card provision of the rule. Did the enforcement person say there was any purpose for the card _other_ than to verify training? Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Mar 31 10:59:08 1995 Received: from [136.152.70.211] (sophie.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.70.211]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA20945; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:59:01 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 11:06:19 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard Rosenberg) Subject: no need to adjust your dial >What special priviledges are required to get archieved files from WPS- >forum? Each time I send a request, I get a message saying special >priviledges are required? Ruth and Others who may be having a similar problem, There is no truth to the rumor that ListProc is pulling an early April Fool's prank on you. Having already subscribed to the forum, at this point the only special qualification you need to get into the archive is patience. As Dana posted yesterday, Pandora's pet, "Progress", has been unleashed in the system and it is temporarily (we trust) fouling up some routine functions. Talented folks are hard at work on restoring normalcy. Someone will post another announcement when things appear to be A-OK, most likely later today. Meanwhile, the GET and INDEX commands may or may not do their jobs, though Gophering into the archive is working fine for me. Sorry for the inconvenience. Howard -- Howard Rosenberg Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Berkeley From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Mar 31 15:02:12 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.38] (gia3mac28.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA28266 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:02:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:02:11 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: more on the software upgrade I think we have things back under control. The setup procedure for the upgrade of the mailing list software had a bug that caused the archived file information not to be upgraded correctly. The problems with requesting files that some people noticed should now be gone, so everyone can resume with file requests, posting messages, gophering, world-wide webbing, info surfing, etc. Yours, Dana Keil, Mailing List Manager -- Dana E. Keil Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics dana@are.Berkeley.EDU University of California, Berkeley