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