From LTrue@aol.com Tue May 2 06:13:19 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 GAA22905 for ; Tue, 2 May 1995 06:13:16 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA226130327; Tue, 2 May 1995 09:12:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 09:12:07 -0400 Message-Id: <950502091205_103837638@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Silence Is anyone there? I am surprised at what appears to be an absence of interest or questions in the summaries of EPA actions posted by Judy Smith. Lou True From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Tue May 2 07:10:14 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 HAA23316 for ; Tue, 2 May 1995 07:10:12 -0700 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 22; Tue, 02 May 1995 10:06:57 +500 Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 10:06:56 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098FBFC.EBEE19C0.22@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: RE: Silence I think we're stunned at that fact that these add more complexities to explain. One question I have is what are the grower's responsibilities as they relate to crop advisors? Has this exemption changed anything for the actual producer? Joanne Kick-Raack From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Tue May 2 07:27:18 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA23639 for ; Tue, 2 May 1995 07:27:16 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id KAA20018; Tue, 2 May 1995 10:22:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 10:22:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199505021422.KAA20018@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Tammy Gould) Subject: Re: Silence Lou - I'll start. I'm the WP Coordinator in a small state (Maine). I hate to think what growers will do to me next winter when I tell them that they've got to give some abbreviated pesticide safety training to their untrained workers before they can do any worker tasks. To me, this was a miserable compromise. Why not just require full training up front or leave a specified grace period in tact? I think we'll find most growers simply choosing to do the training up front, rather than deal with some one-page sheet. In all honesty, I suspect most of us are just too busy right now. My pressing concerns are not what will be required next year for training, but (1)Are people who work on mechanical potato harvesters covered by the WPS? (2)Where is the best place for paper companies to post a central information display for forest herbicide operations? (3)What can I provide our field inspectors to assist them with conducting WPS inspections? (4)What can our office provide for assistance to individuals or groups wanting to conduct worker or handler training? These are my concerns and questions. Implementation of the WPS is a full-time and then some job. I'll get around to the changes in the rule. >Is anyone there? I am surprised at what appears to be an absence of interest >or questions in the summaries of EPA actions posted by Judy Smith. > >Lou True > From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Tue May 2 08:18:50 1995 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA24865 for ; Tue, 2 May 1995 08:18:48 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Tue, 02 May 1995 08:16:54 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 08:16:56 -0700 To: LTrue@aol.com, WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Silence -Reply Like Lou True, I am also surprised at the lack of comment on the final actions of EPA. Maybe we're still digesting them. I have always had difficultly understanding just why crop advisors were and continue to be called handlers. Why did the EPA divide the universe up into only two groups (handlers and workers) and then try to jam everyone into one or the other? What good is handler training to someone who will be going in after the application to check on things? If they do actual handling that is another task and differs from field checking or scouting. I've been told that it was done so they could go in soon after the application. But that still required an exemption for PPE. I an exemption is needed anyway why didn't they just exempt them from the time in the first place? I am glad to see that the low contact time interval is now consistent with the irrigator time. With hand harvesting of roses set at three I couldn't see why the LCA time had to be that low. RoyR From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Tue May 2 14:28:15 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA06275 for ; Tue, 2 May 1995 14:28:06 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 May 1995 17:27:19 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 18:23:47 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Reply to Tommy Gould (was Silence) >I hate to think what growers will do to me next winter< >when I tell them that they've got to give some abbreviated< >pesticide safety training to their untrained workers before< >they can do any worker tasks. To me, this was a< >miserable compromise. Why not just require full training< >up front or leave a specified grace period in tact?< The new training requirement provides for a specified grace period of 5 days after 1/1/96. If an employer wants to provide training on day one there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. However, if he wants to continue hiring for 5 days and then train the whole group, or if he needs time to arrange for a trainer, translator, etc., he can "buy" 5 days grace by utilizing the pamphlet. Employers I've spoken with like this flexibility much better than no grace period at all. Some farm worker advocates wanted no work prior to training and this rule revision will assure that workers have basic information prior to commencement of work. This will also enable workers to earn pay rather than just cool their heels until the employer can provide or arrange for the training. >(1)Are people who work on mechanical potato harvesters< >covered by the WPS?< All persons are covered by WPS one way or another on any commercial farm that uses pesticides on plants (other than injection directly into plants). However, If people who work on mechanical potato harvesters do not contact treated surfaces, or they do not work in treated areas within 30 days of the expiration of an REI, then there is no requirement for them with respect to training and decontamination facilities. >(2)Where is the best place for paper companies to post a< >central information display for forest herbicide operations?< I'd recommend that you review section 170.135 of the rule and paragraph 13.15 of the Interpretive Guidance which states, in part, "where it can be readily seen or read" and "or in or near a forest, where workers or handlers are likely to congregate or pass by." >(4)What can our office provide for assistance to< >individuals or groups wanting to conduct worker or handler< >training?< A lot. You could provide train-the-trainer programs, training materials, training facilities and equipment, technical advice, facilitate their obtaining EPA verification cards to issue to trainees, funding, publicity, office and telephone services, contacts with growers and workers, governmental liaison. There must be many possibilities for support. I hope this helps. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov From LTrue@aol.com Tue May 2 15:41:46 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 PAA08671 for ; Tue, 2 May 1995 15:41:42 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA229794470; Tue, 2 May 1995 18:41:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 18:41:10 -0400 Message-Id: <950502182257_104397243@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Silence -Reply I'm glad to see that the forum lives. I'd like to offer responses to a couple of the comments made concerning the recent EPA actions: RoyR asked why EPA did not exempt crop advisors in the first place, since using the WPS provisions for entry as a handler during or soon after (4 hr/vent/inhal criteria) would have required a PPE exemption anyway. EPA did intend to permit entry to perform crop advisor duties, with contact, at any ti me. We could debate whether defining them as handlers was the perfect way to have done it. As Roy mentions, for example, some elements of the handler training may not be perfectly relevent to crop advisor entry soon after application. I would argue, however, that the bulk of the handler provisions are appropriate in this exposure situation. In any case, the original WPA provisions do permit crop advisor entry wearing handler PPE during these early periods, and no exemption would have been necessary to make that approach work. Moreover, in the How to Comply manual, EPA permitted crop advisor entry later, but during the REI, with worker early-entry PPE. Again, it is unclear why a PPE exemption was required. I am aware, however, that many crop advisors preferred the convenience of a standard set of PPE. Roy also suggests that the extension of time to perform irrigation or "lo w contact" tasks may be appropriate because the rose exemption permits 3 hours -- more than the short-term exception in WPS of 1 hr in 24. We need to remember that the exception provisions of WPS were designed by EPA to set a rather high hurdle for exceptions, based on extraordinary benefits, and capacity to protect the workers, to be justified by requestors and determined by EPA on a case by case basis. As a result, we should not expect the intervals to be similar from exception to exception. Rather, the intervals and other terms of the exceptions should be expected to vary, depending on the Agency's careful review of information required by the regulation on the need for and consequences of ( on the benefits and risks of) each proposal. We may all have our own opinions about whether the regulatory tests were actually met in the exceptions we understand have be granted. I look forward to the Agency's analysis in the Federal Register notices. As for some of the other questions concerning the new actions, we will have to await the actual text. Lou True From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Wed May 3 05:09:12 1995 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA20169 for ; Wed, 3 May 1995 05:09:10 -0700 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HQ258EQLC08ZXNBT@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Wed, 03 May 1995 08:09:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 08:09:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Silence To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HQ258ERNWY8ZXNBT@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I agree with Joanne Kick-Raack. These revisions add to the complexity of an already complex rule. I'm waiting to see the Federal Register publications to evaluate just what the implications of these changes mean. Does the agency plan to update any of the outreach material (How-to-Comply manual, Overview slide set etc) to incorporate these revisions? Norm Nesheim From VINEGUY@aol.com Wed May 3 21:28:03 1995 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA14176 for ; Wed, 3 May 1995 21:28:01 -0700 From: VINEGUY@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA161581641; Thu, 4 May 1995 00:27:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 00:27:21 -0400 Message-Id: <950503214704_105990573@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Silence Oh yes we are out here. I am a designated WPS trainer in North Carolina. At this time I am working hard to get people trained so they are in compliance with WPS. I keep an eye on the forum to help me keep up with the changes that seem to be just over the next hill. The North Carolina Dept. of Ag. is also a big help keeping up with these changes so we can pass it on to our classes. I may not hold my hand up but I am not asleep in the back of the class. Andy Spradley, Biltmore Estate Vineyard, Asheville NC From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu May 4 07:53:27 1995 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA20814 for ; Thu, 4 May 1995 07:53:25 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id KAA27033; Thu, 4 May 1995 10:52:53 -0400 Date: 04 May 95 10:51:31 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop Advisor Exemption Message-ID: <950504145131_73507.555_HHB64-1@CompuServe.COM> Here is my comment on the recent actions. My fears have been realized, crop advisors are now allowed to ignore the label. This is a bad move. Crop advisors are the group that should be most expected to follow pesticide labels. Never before has any group been allowed to ignore PPE requirements and decide what they want to wear. This even applies to employees under their direct supervision, whatever you take "direct supervision" to mean. I hope California corrects this mistake in the regulations to be proposed. There are many certified, educated, experienced pesticide applicators out there. Should they now also be allowed to decide what PPE is appropriate? We did have one national standard before WPS, namely pesticide labeling. I find it ironic that an effect of the WPS is to degrade this standard. I also echo Roy's sentiments regarding advisors. Why is it necessary to call them handlers and then exempt them from all handler requirements and protions of the label to boot? Why not call them crop advisors and propose sensible rules for thier protection? >> The exemption established by this action allows certified >> or licensed crop advisors to choose appropriate protection >> to be utilized while performing crop advising tasks in >> treated areas after the end of pesticide application. >> This rule also establishes a temporary exemption for all >> persons while doing crop advising tasks in order to allow >> time to acquire certification or licensing. >> >> EPA is exempting knowledgeable and experienced crop advisors, >> and persons under their direct supervision, from the PPE, >> knowledge of labeling and site specific information, >> decontamination, and emergency assistance requirements of >> the WPS after pesticide application ends and only when >> performing crop advising tasks. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From MNPPPest@aol.com Thu May 4 08:20:16 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA21401 for ; Thu, 4 May 1995 08:20:14 -0700 From: MNPPPest@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA105410782; Thu, 4 May 1995 11:19:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 11:19:42 -0400 Message-Id: <950504111941_106584328@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: MGALLO@cdprmtp Subject: Fwd: Re: WPS Compliance -Reply --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: WPS Compliance -Reply Date: 95-05-04 11:05:51 EDT From: MNPPPest To: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Mr. Gallo, You had asked a question of my question on whether we could continue using blue flags in the field as an additional warning to our employees that the area has been treated with a pesticide. Yes, we are in California- and proud of it!!! From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Thu May 4 11:02:43 1995 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA26600 for ; Thu, 4 May 1995 11:02:38 -0700 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HQ3V8357CG8ZX2A5@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Thu, 04 May 1995 14:03:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 14:03:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Crop Advisor Exemption To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HQ3V8360AA8ZX2A5@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I agree with Bob Roach's comments. It seems to me to raise some serious concerns. What if a certified crop advisor decides that his employees do not have to wear PPE during an REI? What if an employee claims illness resulting from exposure during the REI when he was told he or she did not have to wear PPE? Raises some questions concerning liability. I would think the registrants might be concerned. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Norm Nesheim Univ. of FL onn@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu May 4 13:18:57 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 NAA00443 for ; Thu, 4 May 1995 13:18:49 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 04 May 1995 13:18:20 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 13:18:30 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Working in Seedling Crops I would like to run a course of what I hope is logic by forum members. If I have missed something in trying to make this simple, please let me know. The definition of hand labor has two elements: 1. Done by hand or with hand tools, and 2. Results in substantial contact with treated surfaces. Hand labor is generally prohibited during the REI. The definition of limited contact also has two exposure elements: 1. Minimal, and 2. occurs only to the "outer" extremities. Limited contact is allowed for 8 hours. Other tasks involving "contact" are limited to 1 hour No contact tasks do not have a time limit. What about: A task, such as weeding with a long handled hoe in a low (no higher than the knees) growing or seedling crop? California people now probably see where I am headed. This task, while done "by hand or with hand tools", does not involve "substantial" contact with treated surfaces. In fact, if the crop is "real small" some might argue that contact is "minimal" (whatever that is). This task does not seem to meet the second element, and therefore the definition, of "hand labor". It is NOT a no contact activity. Would it be allowed for 1 hour during the REI? If not, on what grounds? If the crop is "real small" would it be allowed for 8 hours as a limited contact activity? Would it make any difference if the treated soil surface between the seedling plants was mechanically cultivated prior to the work (no longer a treated surface)? For the benefit of non-Californians: California reentry standards currently contain an exemption in Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6770, for thinning or weeding when "all plants in the treated field are seedlings, i. e., they have no more than six true leaves". This is, or at least was, very important to the vegetable growers in California. The status of this situation is sure to come up in comments on the implementation regulations. RoyR From IPetrus@aol.com Thu May 4 17:36:17 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA11075; Thu, 4 May 1995 17:36:15 -0700 From: IPetrus@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA230644143; Thu, 4 May 1995 20:35:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 20:35:43 -0400 Message-Id: <950504203531_107182033@aol.com> To: Sender:owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: General query Is it possible to conduct MSDS trainig & Wps training as one appr. one hour session or must I conduct them seperately? From a commercial business sense, the videos seem to overlap. From 73733.3355@compuserve.com Thu May 4 17:58:23 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 RAA11559 for ; Thu, 4 May 1995 17:58:20 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id UAA27403; Thu, 4 May 1995 20:57:44 -0400 Date: 04 May 95 20:56:04 EDT From: LANCE HAM <73733.3355@compuserve.com> To: WPS-forum Subject: Farmer Message-ID: <950505005603_73733.3355_CHL25-1@CompuServe.COM> I am a strawberry and tomato farmer in Plant city FL. I read all the mail you guys send , but don't have time to respond. I would like to know if there is another grower out there. Thanks for all the info H & S farms Lance Ham Fax # (813) 759-2062 From IPetrus@aol.com Thu May 4 19:56:00 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA13350 for ; Thu, 4 May 1995 19:55:58 -0700 From: IPetrus@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA168762525; Thu, 4 May 1995 22:55:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 22:55:25 -0400 Message-Id: <950504224229_107350907@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Farmer I am a Maryland grower of perennials annuals and woody plants 300 employees now in the spring. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri May 5 10:24:12 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 KAA24345 for ; Fri, 5 May 1995 10:24:09 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 10:24:18 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: dinner is served in the archive Now available in the WPS-Forum archive is a series of five EPA notices published in the Federal Register, May 3, 1995, officially announcing changes in the WPS. The documents contain full text of the regulatory actions summarized last week in posts by Judy Smith. Two of the actions are presented as "Administrative Exception Decisions," two of them "Final Rules," and one a "Policy Statement." While the administrative exceptions and the policy statement were effective immediately (on May 3), the final rules do not take effect until July 17, 1995. Topics of these notices correspond to those in the series of proposals and requests for comment published on Jan. 11, 1995: (1) pesticide safety training for workers; (2) requirements for persons who perform crop advising tasks; (3) early entry restrictions for activities involving limited contact with treated surfaces; (4) early entry restrictions for irrigation activities; and (5) restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk pesticides. Respective archive filenames and capsule descriptions are below. ------------------------------------------ train95.rul (29005 bytes) -- Final rule amendment to the WPS, modifying requirements for provision of pesticide safety training to workers. The rule (1) makes the 5-day grace period for training workers effective January 1, 1996, retaining until then the present 15-day grace period; (2) effective January 1, 1996, requires employers to assure that workers who are not yet trained receive specific basic pesticide safety information before making any entry into a treated area; (3) maintains a maximum retraining interval of 5 years. Pages 21944-21948 in FR, 5/3/95. cropad95.rul (39188 bytes) -- Final rule amendment to the WPS, exempting qualified crop advisors from some requirements and also exempting persons from some requirements while advising under the direct supervision of a certified or licensed crop advisor. This rule also establishes a grace period (exemption from WPS requirements) until May 1996 for all persons doing crop advising tasks. Pages 21948-21953 in FR, 5/3/95. limcon95.dec (36540 bytes) -- Administrative exception decision by EPA, allowing early entry into pesticide treated areas for certain limited contact activities. The exception allows workers to perform tasks, which if delayed would result in significant economic loss, and that result in minimal contact with pesticide-treated surfaces, for up to 8 hours per 24-hour period during a restricted entry interval. Pages 21955-21960 in FR, 5/3/95. irrig95.dec (36274 bytes) -- Administrative exception decision by EPA, allowing early entry into pesticide treated areas for certain irrigation activities. The exception allows workers to perform necessary irrigation tasks, which if delayed could cause significant economic loss, and that result in minimal contact with pesticide-treated surfaces, for a maximum of 8 hours in a 24-hour period during a restricted entry interval. Pages 21960-21965 in FR, 5/3/95. redrei95.pol (26435 bytes) -- Statement of EPA policy statement on ``Reduced Restricted Entry Intervals for Certain Pesticides'', allowing registrants to reduce the interim REIs from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk pesticides. The statement contains a candidate list of 114 active ingredients that meet the low toxicity criteria and may be eligible for reduced REIs. Pages 21965-21968 in FR, 5/3/95. To obtain a copy of any file, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM Multiple GET commands may be stacked in a single message. --Howard Rosenberg From 75222.2562@compuserve.com Fri May 5 11:10:04 1995 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA25566 for ; Fri, 5 May 1995 11:10:02 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id OAA23267; Fri, 5 May 1995 14:09:31 -0400 Date: 05 May 95 14:06:22 EDT From: Doug Edwards <75222.2562@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: laboratory personnel Message-ID: <950505180621_75222.2562_GHI45-1@CompuServe.COM> I've had a call from one of our local agricultrual laboratories. These folks often enter treated areas to take foliage, fruit and/or soil samples at the request of the grower for a variety of purposes. They have limited short duration contact with the treated plants. They want to know where they fit in the WPS scheme of things. Are they handlers (ala crop advisors) or workers, or not covered at all. It is impractical for these folks to wait for the REI to expire. If they come under WPS, it would be best to treat them in the same manner as crop advisors. I'm interested in the EPA's viewpoint on this issue. Doug Edwards Deputy Ag Commissioner Frenso County, CA 75222,2562@Compuserve.com From 73733.3355@compuserve.com Fri May 5 15:00:32 1995 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA03545 for ; Fri, 5 May 1995 15:00:30 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id RAA14123; Fri, 5 May 1995 17:59:58 -0400 Date: 05 May 95 17:58:18 EDT From: LANCE HAM <73733.3355@compuserve.com> To: WPS-forum Subject: Questions to grower for the forum Message-ID: <950505215817_73733.3355_CHL70-1@CompuServe.COM> Thanks for the concern for the grower regarding the new WPS standards. This is the first time anyone from the gov't has asked the growers opinion about WPS. It seems odd that someone has asked our opinion after the fact instead of before. The impact WPS has had on our operation compared to '90 thru '95 is an arsenal of literature, flip charts, videos, EPA cards, and pesticide safety sheets. All of these are costing us time and money. In '90 we had to collect W-4's and I-9's, which was not that costly, because you could photocopy the original W-4 form and I-9 forms one thousand times if needed. Now in '95 we have to collect W-4's, I-9's, check for WPS trained workers, and make sure the WPS cards are not expired. If they are not trained we have 15 days to train them. This is costly, because we can not photocopy any of the training materials. We have trained 17 workers, and EACH worker wantedto know why they had to have training, "Did we think they were that stupid?".One worker actually walked out of a training session, because the training was so child like. The discussions on the forum are some what helpful, because the problem is the new WPS standards. A subject I would like to see on the forum is, when is there going to be a governmental agency to train the workers instead of the growers. Thanks for the time Lance Fax#759-2062 (813) From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon May 8 07:55:01 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 HAA00589 for ; Mon, 8 May 1995 07:54:59 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id KAA07159; Mon, 8 May 1995 10:54:28 -0400 Date: 08 May 95 10:45:24 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: PPE Requirements Message-ID: <950508144523_73507.555_HHB36-1@CompuServe.COM> Gordon, You asked an excellent question and it brings out an interesting point about some new WPS labels. For this reason I am answering you on the forum rather than off. California regulations may impose higher standards than the label for personal protective equipment. There are also cases where label PPE may be reduced, for example when a closed system is used for mixing/loading. This latter case will be brought into line with the WPS when new regulations are implemented. However, what you are asking is a different question. If the label says "avoid breathing spray mist" but does not require a respirator (e.g. Roundup) and the applicator is working in a situation where use of a respirator is necessary to avoid breathing spray mist, a respirator is required. It is required to comply with the label statement to avoid breathing spray mist. The Guthion Solupak (50W) label does not say anything like "avoid breathing vapors." The Guthion 2L label does say "do not breath fumes." It does allow the use of the TC-21C dust/mist respirator in open areas. Since that respirator does not protect against fumes my answer is that if the applicator could detect fumes or was being exposed to fumes, he or she would have to wear a TC-23C respirator. This is a judgement call on the part of the inspector. I think labels like this are poorly written. How can they say "do not breath fumes" and then allow the user to wear a respirator that does not protect against fumes? How is the applicator supposed to know he or she is being exposed to fumes? They may not have any odor. Are we to assume that the applicator is not being exposed to fumes in the open? >>I would like to know if California law supercedes label >>ppe requirements? For example even though the Guthion >>label lists the type of respirator to be worn as >>a dust/ mist mask, doesn't the statement avoid breathing >>vapors indicate that only a charcoal filtered respirator >>would provide that type of protection? If >>an illness did occur due to breathing pesticide vapors >>and the victim was only wearing a dust\mist mask I >>believe the Ag Commissioner would have to take the >>position that a charcoal filtered cartridge respirator >>would have to have been worn in order to avoid the vapor >>and therefore the employer would be in violation. >>Please comment. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Mon May 8 08:29:47 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA01512 for ; Mon, 8 May 1995 08:29:44 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 08 May 1995 11:28:43 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 12:30:20 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: laboratory personnel -Reply On May 5, 1995, Doug Edwards wrote: >I've had a call from one of our local agricultrual< >laboratories (who) . . . want to know where they fit in the< >WPS scheme of things.< It depends largely on what they are doing and how they are paid. I'd suggest they review the newly issued WPS rule for crop advisors. To obtain a copy, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM CROPAD95.RUL This rule explains (among other things): "The WPS is not applicable to a person or establishment providing services (including crop advising services) on an agricultural establishment without compensation from the agricultural establishment for those services. For example, the WPS would not apply to extension agents, university researchers and chemical company representatives providing recommendations to growers where the agricultural establishment is not providing compensation for those recommendations." Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Mon May 8 09:13:06 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 JAA02437 for ; Mon, 8 May 1995 09:13:04 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id MAA08826; Mon, 8 May 1995 12:13:03 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id MAA11045; Mon, 8 May 1995 12:13:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 11:58:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Definition of Hand Labor Tasks To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The WPS not only defines hand labor activities as as any agricultural activity performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a worker to have substantial contact with surfaces (such as plants, plant parts, or soil) that may contain pesticide residues. It also gives a specific listing of several activities that are hand labor tasks and those that are not hand labor activities. It states: "These activities include, but are not limited to, harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into containers in the field. Hand labor does not include operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing the tasks of crop advisors." The Response To Comments document issued with the WPS offers further clarification of the definition: "[T]he Agency listed activities it considers as having the potential for "substantial contact" with treated surfaces in an attempt to limit employer discretion and to clarify the concept. The Agency believes the phrase "substantial contact" is still necessary in the definition of "hand-labor activities" to define other less common hand-labor activities that may not have been listed." EPA's definition of "hand labor" appears to include weeding, thinning, roguing, etc. with a hoe -- long handled or otherwise. -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Mon May 8 10:36:45 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 KAA05130 for ; Mon, 8 May 1995 10:36:42 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 08 May 1995 10:37:00 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 10:36:27 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: PPE Requirements -Reply Bob Roach touched on one of my pet issues. Let's see if I can go out on a limb and get into trouble. Lets not confuse mists with vapors. To know if there is a real vapor hazard you have to know the vapor pressure of the chemical. We looked up some and did calculations that show that in THEORY you could breath the atmosphere in the head space of a half full can and not be over the exposure standard. This was only for the active not all inerts. I feel that for most non-fumigant pesticides the respiratory hazard is vastly over rated! However, a respirator does assist in preventing oral exposure by limiting drops falling on your lips and tongue etc. Almost any kind would do this. Unless there is a relatively high vapor pressure or a smoke, aerosol, or fog is created (5 micron particle size or less) there is fairly low inhalation hazard. By focusing on this low true respiratory hazard, we tend reduce the emphasis on the primary hazard which is dermal. We fought this battle over registration data requirements and reached basically the conclusion stated above. I don't how or if this helps field people interpret labeling but it is food for thought. RoyR From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Mon May 8 12:03:13 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 MAA08170 for ; Mon, 8 May 1995 12:03:10 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id PAA19831; Mon, 8 May 1995 15:03:01 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id PAA15271; Mon, 8 May 1995 15:03:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 14:31:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: PPE Requirements -Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I, too, must enter this discussion. Many of the label precautionary statements, such as "Avoid breathing spray mist," "Avoid breathing fumes," "Do not breath vapors," "Avoid breathing vapors, dust, or spray mist," and, my personal all time favorite, "Do not breathe," are, I believe, considered advisory, rather than enforceable statements. A comparable statement for dermal protection is "Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing." Clearly, this dermal admonition is nearly impossible to comply with -- if taken literally -- unless someone using closed systems and enclosed cabs. The personal protective equipment statements are intended to be enforceable minimum protective gear, unless an engineering control, such as a closed system or enclosed cab, is used. In some situations, a handler may determine that more than minimum protection is prudent and increase the PPE protection over what the label requires. However, from a federal enforcement standpoint (I know zilch about California regs), I do not believe that handlers should be held in violation for not wearing the appropriate PPE as long as they are wearing AT LEAST the PPE that the label requires. I also agree with the comment that respiratory exposure is a small fraction of the total exposure a handler receives in non-fumigant handling situations. Data indicate that respiratory exposure is likely to be less than one percent of the total exposure in most handling situations. In addition, data indicate that organic-vapor removing respirators (other than powered-air-purifying respirators) cause respiratory stress and heat stress when used for more than brief periods of time. Finally, at the risk of REALLY getting into hot water. I suggest that the respiratory precautionary statements quoted in the previous message ("Do not breathe vapors") were general statements placed on the labeling some time ago and probably did not (and still do not) intend to differentiate between types of respiratory concerns. In contrast, the PPE statement requiring a specific type of respirator was placed on the labeling (in most cases) very recently and was based on the specific respiratory concerns for the active ingredient in that product. Sally PS Aren't we glad the "Silence" message got everything going again? -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From dbreth@cce.cornell.edu Mon May 8 16:56:00 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 QAA16259 for ; Mon, 8 May 1995 16:55:57 -0700 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0s8cgc-0003VFC; Mon, 8 May 95 19:58 EDT Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 19:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Deborah Breth Subject: Re: WPS-FORUM digest 250 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <199504210659.XAA18574@are.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Carolyn Tryon, I would like to review the WPS safety sheets for pesticides. Thank you for the offer. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Deborah I. Breth Specialty: Fruit IPM Area Extension Specialist Phone: 716-589-5561 Cornell Cooperative Extension FAX: 716-589-0665 PO Box 150, Albion, NY 14411 email address: dbreth@cce.cornell.edu ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Wed May 10 05:07:27 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA19418 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 05:07:25 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id IAA21534; Wed, 10 May 1995 08:02:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 08:02:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199505101202.IAA21534@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Gary Fish) Subject: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS I don't see how you can say a Chemical Company sales rep. does not receive compensation for scouting activities etc. They recieve their pay from proceeds paid by the farmer and sometimes their compensation is based on how much they sell. In that instance they derive their pay from their activities on each farm. These sales reps should know what they are doing and maybe they should be exempt for that reason, but I see no basis for exemption because of the lack of compensation. From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Wed May 10 07:15:12 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA20142 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 07:15:04 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 May 1995 10:14:04 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:14:13 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply >I don't see how you can say a Chemical Company sales< >rep. does not receive compensation for scouting activities< >etc.< A chemical company sales representative is not normally an employee of the farmer. But if the farmer paid him or his company a fee for scouting activities the rep would then be deemed by EPA to be engaged by the farmer as either a crop advisor or an employee. This language is intended to capture employer-employee relationships; these can sometimes be complex legal questions. While a sales rep may increase sales and commissions through customer service, that does not create an employment relationship just as it does not obligate the farmer for the rep's minimum wage, workers compensation, and other employment-related rules. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From ctelghed@cce.cornell.edu Wed May 10 07:29:06 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 HAA20423 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 07:29:05 -0700 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0s9Cn9-0003V7C; Wed, 10 May 95 10:31 EDT Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 10:29:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Craig Telgheder Subject: Re: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Just to add another interesting spin, what about a sales rep who's a certified crop advisor? On Wed, 10 May 1995, Al French wrote: > >I don't see how you can say a Chemical Company sales< > >rep. does not receive compensation for scouting activities< > >etc.< > > A chemical company sales representative is not normally > an employee of the farmer. But if the farmer paid him or his > company a fee for scouting activities the rep would then be > deemed by EPA to be engaged by the farmer as either a > crop advisor or an employee. > This language is intended to capture employer-employee > relationships; these can sometimes be complex legal > questions. While a sales rep may increase sales and > commissions through customer service, that does not > create an employment relationship just as it does not > obligate the farmer for the rep's minimum wage, workers > compensation, and other employment-related rules. > > Al French > USDA Coordinator of > Agricultural Labor Affairs > alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov > 202/720-4737 > Craig Telgheder Cornell Cooperative Extension Columbia County 479 Route 66 Hudson, NY 12534 craig_telgheder@cce.cornell.edu Phone 518-828-3346 Fax 518-828-3069 Newton Mail: CraigT132413@eworld.com From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed May 10 07:51:14 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 HAA20684 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 07:51:12 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id KAA23890; Wed, 10 May 1995 10:51:10 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id KAA17334; Wed, 10 May 1995 10:51:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 10:37:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The WPS Interpretive Guidance Workgroup has stated: "The Agency intends "compensation" to be interpreted broadly. (see 14.13 of IGW Q's and A's). In the case of students, for example, the IGW determined that students were being compensated (and were covered by the WPS) if they were receiving stipends or reductions in education costs. The IGW also determined that academic credit alone may be considered compensation in situations where students are engaged in worker or handler activities and for which compensation is normally paid or anticipated. The WPS How To Comply manual (page 18) states that compensation includes "pay or wages, payment through services or goods, or barter of services or goods. If only one person receives payment for the joint work of several people, all are considered to be compensated and are employees under the WPS." It would seem premature to declare that employees of agricultural laboratories or pesticide dealers or others whom the grower is paying for a service or from whom the grower is purchasing goods (such as pesticides) as a direct result of the entry onto the grower's establishment are not receiving compensation and are, therefore, not within the scope of the WPS. Perhaps the IGW would like to address this issue? Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Wed May 10 08:34:20 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA21696 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 08:34:15 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 May 1995 11:33:05 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:31:36 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply -Reply >Just to add another interesting spin, what about a sales< >rep who's a certified crop advisor?< I don't see where that would change matters. If he was paid as a sales rep or crop advisor by the chemical company, he would be the employee of the chemical company and the farmer would have no WPS obligation for his crop advising activities. If he was acting as a crop advisor, and the farmer paid him or his company a fee for crop advisory services, he would be deemed a crop advisor for the purposes of WPS coverage. Perhaps it would be more easily understood if we recall that the WPS obligates only farm owners and employers (including commercial handler employers), and not employees or outside persons. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov From afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Wed May 10 08:50:35 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA22078 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 08:50:33 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id LAA01377; Wed, 10 May 1995 11:45:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:45:48 -0400 Message-Id: <199505101545.LAA01377@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Gary Fish) Subject: Re: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply -Reply Al: I,m not saying the farmer has any obligation other than to provide information about applications. What I'm saying is that the chemical company is an Agricultural Employer who hires people to do crop advisory tasks and pays them to do crop advisory task as part of a service they provide to growers. Therfore the chemical sales rep would need to be trained as a handler under the WPS or be certified as a crop advisor under the new exemption. Gary Fish Maine BPC From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Wed May 10 09:22:50 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA22755 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 09:22:48 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 May 1995 12:21:49 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:11:00 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply -Reply >It would seem premature to declare that employees of< >agricultural laboratories or pesticide dealers or others< >whom the grower is paying for a service or from whom the< >grower is purchasing goods (such as pesticides) as a< >direct result of the entry onto the grower's establishment< >are not receiving compensation and are, therefore, not< >within the scope of the WPS.< Where has anyone declared that "employees of agricultural laboratories or pesticide dealers or others whom the grower is paying for a service" are not within the scope of the WPS? The rule clearly states they are covered. The rule also addresses chemical company representatives: "The WPS is not applicable to a person or establishment providing services (including crop advising services) on an agricultural establishment without compensation from the agricultural establishment for those services. For example, the WPS would not apply to extension agents, university researchers and chemical company representatives providing recommendations to growers where the agricultural establishment is not providing compensation for those recommendations." (FedReg 60 @ 21950 (May 3, 1995)). Of course, the farmer is also paying taxes that are used to compensate extension agents and university researchers. Does this mean that the exclusion in the crop advisor rule applies only to farmers that don't pay their taxes and who buy products only from companies that did not offer pesticide recommendations? Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Wed May 10 09:35:03 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 JAA23220 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 09:35:01 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id MAA10189; Wed, 10 May 1995 12:34:30 -0400 Date: 10 May 95 12:33:13 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Let's just ignore labels Message-ID: <950510163313_73507.555_HHB38-1@CompuServe.COM> Sally, I think you are absolutely wrong. Label statements concerning avoiding exposure with pesticides are not merely advisory. Such statements are being enforced in California. If the U.S. EPA and the manufacturers do not intend for the user to follow such directions, why did they put them on the label? Why do you think it is impossible to apply a pesticide and not get it on your eyes, skin or clothing? I expect pesticide users to take reasonable precautions to comply with such label directions. The WPS is intended to be a national standard for worker protection. What some of these discussions on the forum are pointing out is that nationwide, the one standard that has been in existence, pesticide labeling, is considered merely "advisory" by many people. What is the U.S. EPA doing regarding a uniform enforcement standard? Well, they are now telling crop advisors that the PPE requirements on the label are merely advisory for them. Once this erosion of respect for label directions has started, where will it stop? Perhaps some crop advisors will decide that the label rate is merely advisory, or applications should be made more frequently than the label directs. After all, they can decide what PPE to use and they are considered qualified to ignore that part of the label so why not the rest of the label? >>I, too, must enter this discussion. Many of the label precautionary >>statements, such as "Avoid breathing spray mist," "Avoid breathing >>fumes,""Do not breath vapors," "Avoid breathing vapors, dust, or >>spray mist," and, my personal all time favorite, "Do not breathe," >>are, I believe, considered advisory, rather than enforceable >>statements. A comparable statement for dermal protection is "Do not >>get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing." Clearly, this dermal >>admonition is nearly impossible to comply with -- if taken >>literally -- unless someone using closed systems and enclosed cabs. >>... >>Finally, at the risk of REALLY geting into hot water. I suggest >>that the respiratory precautionary statements quoted in the previous >>message ("Do not breathe vapors") were general statements placed on >>the labeling some time ago and probably did not (and still do not) >>intend to differentiate between types of respiratory concerns. In >>contrast, the PPE statement >>requiring a specific type of respirator was placed on the labeling >>(in most cases) very recently and was based on the specific >>respiratory concerns for the active ingredient in that product. >> >>Sally Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Wed May 10 10:31:08 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA25105 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 10:31:01 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 May 1995 13:30:02 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 14:31:55 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply -Reply -Reply >Al: I,m not saying the farmer has any obligation other< >than to provide information about applications. What I'm< >saying is that the chemical company is an Agricultural< >Employer who hires people to do crop advisory tasks and< >pays them to do crop advisory task as part of a service< >they provide to growers. Therfore the chemical sales rep< >would need to be trained as a handler under the WPS or< >be certified as a crop advisor under the new exemption.< Gary, I understand what you are saying, and I have no disagreement with your logic. Whether or not the WPS _should_ be as you say is another matter, but it would require at least a revision of the WPS regulations and perhaps an amendment to the FIFRA statute itself. What I am saying is that a chemical company does not meet the definition of an agricultural employer under the WPS. And, unless the farmer is paying for their _recommendations_, chemical company reps, extension agents, or university researchers do not have to be trained as handlers or certified as crop advisors because the WPS states that it is not applicable to them. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Wed May 10 11:17:04 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA26680 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 11:17:01 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 May 1995 13:53:48 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 14:55:55 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Let's just ignore labels -Reply Bob, I agree that the WPS should be enforced as a national standard, but I don't think there is a question of anyone taking it upon themselves to ignore the label. Remember that the WPS, including the new crop advisor provisions, are _part_ of the label. --It's just that the label now has too much to print it all on the container! Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed May 10 12:18:31 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 MAA29055 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 12:18:28 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id PAA11131; Wed, 10 May 1995 15:18:26 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id PAA08464; Wed, 10 May 1995 15:19:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 14:52:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Let's just ignore labels To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum In-Reply-To: <950510163313_73507.555_HHB38-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think it is impossible to apply a pesticide (not including engineering controls, such as enclosed cabs) without getting pesticide on the skin and clothing, because I have never seen a single study where applicator's exposure is measured that indicates "zero" exposure. In every exposure assessment I have reviewed, the applicator's clothing contains pesticide residue. In every exposure assessment I have reviewed, the applicator's skin (neck, face, forearms, hands) contains pesticide residue. Many application methods that are specifically listed on labels involve very high exposure to clothing, such as airblast and backpack applications. Even enclosed cabs reduce the dermal exposure "only" approximately 90-95 percent. I emphasize that I do not know about the regulations in California nor am I an expert in the applicator training programs in California. However, I do know that the national (EPA/USDA) training materials for pesticide applicator certification and the national (EPA/USDA) personal protective equipment pamphlets emphasize that an applicator must wear the PPE required by the pesticide labeling and the applicator may choose to wear more protection if such protection seems warranted. I am not advocating that people ignore labeling. I believe labeling states quite clearly what PPE applicators must wear -- I believe it is confusing to state that they are "required" to wear more than the label-specified PPE due to labeling statements telling them to avoid getting pesticide on or in them. What about the rest of you WPS-Forum participants? Do you enforce label statements such as the "Avoid getting on eye, skin, or clothing" or "Do not breathe fumes?" If so, I believe immediate changes need to be made to virtually all (including California's) pesticide applicator training materials. On 10 May 1995, Bob Roach wrote: > Sally, > > I think you are absolutely wrong. Label statements concerning > avoiding exposure with pesticides are not merely advisory. Such > statements are being enforced in California. If the U.S. EPA and the > manufacturers do not intend for the user to follow such directions, > why did they put them on the label? Why do you think it is impossible > to apply a pesticide and not get it on your eyes, skin or clothing? > I expect pesticide users to take reasonable precautions to comply with > such label directions. > > The WPS is intended to be a national standard for worker protection. > What some of these discussions on the forum are pointing out is that > nationwide, the one standard that has been in existence, pesticide > labeling, is considered merely "advisory" by many people. What is the > U.S. EPA doing regarding a uniform enforcement standard? Well, they > are now telling crop advisors that the PPE requirements on the label > are merely advisory for them. Once this erosion of respect for label > directions has started, where will it stop? Perhaps some crop > advisors will decide that the label rate is merely advisory, or > applications should be made more frequently than the label directs. > After all, they can decide what PPE to use and they are considered > qualified to ignore that part of the label so why not the rest of the > label? > > > >>I, too, must enter this discussion. Many of the label precautionary > >>statements, such as "Avoid breathing spray mist," "Avoid breathing > >>fumes,""Do not breath vapors," "Avoid breathing vapors, dust, or > >>spray mist," and, my personal all time favorite, "Do not breathe," > >>are, I believe, considered advisory, rather than enforceable > >>statements. A comparable statement for dermal protection is "Do not > >>get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing." Clearly, this dermal > >>admonition is nearly impossible to comply with -- if taken > >>literally -- unless someone using closed systems and enclosed cabs. > >>... > >>Finally, at the risk of REALLY geting into hot water. I suggest > >>that the respiratory precautionary statements quoted in the previous > >>message ("Do not breathe vapors") were general statements placed on > >>the labeling some time ago and probably did not (and still do not) > >>intend to differentiate between types of respiratory concerns. In > >>contrast, the PPE statement > >>requiring a specific type of respirator was placed on the labeling > >>(in most cases) very recently and was based on the specific > >>respiratory concerns for the active ingredient in that product. > >> > >>Sally > > > Bob Roach > 73507.555@compuserve.com > -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From woodard@igc.apc.org Wed May 10 13:56:51 1995 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA02260 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 13:56:48 -0700 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.196 ) with SMTP id NAA02826 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 13:55:51 -0700 Received: from wpbfl2-38.gate.net (wpbfl2-38.gate.net [199.227.125.166]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.6.12/Revision: 1.6 ) with SMTP id NAA27202 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 13:55:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:55:46 -0700 Message-Id: <199505102055.NAA27202@igc3.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: Let's just ignore labels Sally says: >>>I, too, must enter this discussion. Many of the label precautionary >>>statements, such as "Avoid breathing spray mist," "Avoid breathing >>>fumes,""Do not breath vapors," "Avoid breathing vapors, dust, or >>>spray mist," and, my personal all time favorite, "Do not breathe," >>>are, I believe, considered advisory, rather than enforceable >>>statements. A comparable statement for dermal protection is "Do not >>>get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing." Clearly, this dermal >>>admonition is nearly impossible to comply with -- if taken >>>literally -- unless someone using closed systems and enclosed cabs. In reply, Bob says: >I think you are absolutely wrong. Label statements concerning >avoiding exposure with pesticides are not merely advisory. Such >statements are being enforced in California. If the U.S. EPA and the >manufacturers do not intend for the user to follow such directions, >why did they put them on the label? Why do you think it is impossible >to apply a pesticide and not get it on your eyes, skin or clothing? >I expect pesticide users to take reasonable precautions to comply with >such label directions. Sorry Bob, but I'll have to stick up for Sally. The labels IMHO have gotten way out of hand with lots of the repetitive useless blather that make them difficult to read, and encourage ignorance. After all, you're not supposed to stick your finger in your eye either, but the last time I checked, I didn't have a tattoo on the tip telling me NOT to stick it in my eye. Yes, it's possible to spray pesticides without getting them on your eyes skin and clothing, but accidents do happen. If interpreted literally, however, meaningless phrases like "do not breathe" are ridiculously unenforceable. What about the guy 50 yards down wind of the handler who gets a 2 PPT whiff of pesticide? Does having this statement on the label mean he's subject to an enforcement action? If so, what is the minimum PPT inhalation level subject to enforcement? Who's going to pay for all of the enforcement personnel? If the label says to wear goggles, why is it necessary to say 'don't get it in your eye'? That seems pretty repetitive to me, and (not to leave you out Al), we'll soon need bigger jugs to put all of that text on. /**************************************************************************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33458 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org -My opinions are my own- /**************************************************************************/ From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed May 10 16:44:50 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 QAA07347 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 16:44:48 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id TAA14488; Wed, 10 May 1995 19:43:40 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA800159973; Wed, 10 May 95 19:34:24 EST Date: Wed, 10 May 95 19:34:24 EST Message-Id: <9504108001.AA800159973@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re[2]: Let's just ignore labels In regard to the ongoing discussion concerning labels and label statements, I'm going to also support Sally McDonald and her statements. Precautionary statements, such as those cited by Sally, are provided as reminders and admonitions to handlers to minimize their exposure. They are also REQUIRED for each acute toxicity study classified as Toxicity Category I, II, or III and for products determined to be dermal sensitizers. This information is outlined in the EPA Label Review Manual (revised as of 12/27/94; EPA document no. 737-B-95-001). For example, the pesticide registrant would examine each toxicity classification for acute oral toxicity, acute dermal toxicity, acute inhalation toxicity, primary eye irritation, primary skin irritation, and sensitization for their product. The toxicity level determined for each of these studies will dictate the "boiler plate" or "general precautionary statements". For example, a Toxicity Category III material (signal word is "caution") for acute dermal irritation would have the following statements on the label: Harmful if absorbed through skin. Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. (see Chapter 8, pg. 8) A toxicity III material (where inhalation is the highest toxicity category of concern) would bear the label statements: Harmful if inhaled. Avoid breathing [dust/vapor/spray mist]. Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse. note: the information in brackets indicates that 1 of 3 options must be selected; the most appropriate descriptor of the product state during application would be selected. For a toxicity IV inhalation material, the registrant has latitude in terms of adding any precautionary inhalation statements. So, the precautionary label language is reflective of levels of toxicity, but does not make a precise differentiation between respirator requirements, glove requirements, etc. WPS came along in 1992 and overlaid respiratory requirements, i.e. those that were based on respiratory concerns for the active ingredient. For products with an existing respiratory requirement, WPS retained that requirement on the label. The PPE statements for handlers and early entry workers are the minimum protective gear required for product use; these are enforceable. As Sally McDonald indicated, these are the MINIMUM requirements. This leaves the option to wear MORE PROTECTIVE equipment OPEN and upto the handler; during long periods of application, activities done in areas where ventilation may be poor, etc., the handler may want/need/use a higher level of protection. A State may opt to add more stringent label requirements for a product. Does California require an organic vapor removing cartridge respirator for the Guthion 2L label? (I am not familiar with California regs.) If not, in the event of an intoxication incident, did the employer violate the label PPE requirements? Without a State requirement that is more stringent than the Federally approved label, citing a handler for failure to wear "appropriate PPE" (if they are wearing at least the PPE REQUIRED BY the product label) would be a futile effort. Judy Smith EPA/Washington DC From newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU Wed May 10 18:08:56 1995 Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (newman@lamar.ColoState.EDU [129.82.103.75]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA09296 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 18:08:54 -0700 Received: by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA174513; Wed, 10 May 1995 19:08:52 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 19:08:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Steven Newman To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Chemical Sales Reps & the WPS -Reply -Reply -Reply In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Remember that most of us extension specialists are also trainers and should set good examples. So we should be expected to use appropriate PPE and follow the REIs. Steve _________________________________________________________ | | | Steven E. Newman, Ph.D. | newman@lamar.colostate.edu | | Department of Horticulture | Telephone: 303-491-7118 | | Colorado State University | Fax: 303-491-7745 | | Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1173 | Compuserve: 71563,2563 | | | | Extension Commercial Greenhouse Crops Specialist | |_________________________________________________________| On Wed, 10 May 1995, Al French wrote: > >Al: I,m not saying the farmer has any obligation other< > >than to provide information about applications. What I'm< > >saying is that the chemical company is an Agricultural< > >Employer who hires people to do crop advisory tasks and< > >pays them to do crop advisory task as part of a service< > >they provide to growers. Therfore the chemical sales rep< > >would need to be trained as a handler under the WPS or< > >be certified as a crop advisor under the new exemption.< > > Gary, I understand what you are saying, and I have no > disagreement with your logic. Whether or not the WPS > _should_ be as you say is another matter, but it would > require at least a revision of the WPS regulations and > perhaps an amendment to the FIFRA statute itself. > What I am saying is that a chemical company does > not meet the definition of an agricultural employer under the > WPS. And, unless the farmer is paying for their > _recommendations_, chemical company reps, extension > agents, or university researchers do not have to be trained > as handlers or certified as crop advisors because the WPS > states that it is not applicable to them. > > Al French > USDA Coordinator of > Agricultural Labor Affairs > alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov > 202/720-4737 > > From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu May 11 07:53:17 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 HAA17172 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 07:53:16 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id KAA24232; Thu, 11 May 1995 10:52:07 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA800214473; Thu, 11 May 95 10:46:51 EST Date: Thu, 11 May 95 10:46:51 EST Message-Id: <9504118002.AA800214473@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: laboratory personnel -Reply Al French gave a good response concerning the question raised by Doug Edwards. The laboratory has been hired by the employer to take field samples and will provide recommendations concerning how to better manage the crop. The laboratory field personnel would not be employees of the agricultural establishment, but are engaged in performing crop advising tasks. Under WPS, these people would be considered crop advisors, and would be treated as handlers if they were conducting their activities during the application and REI. Be sure to check out the exception for crop advisors. Judy Smith/EPA 703-305-7666 On May 5, 1995, Doug Edwards wrote: >I've had a call from one of our local agricultrual< >laboratories (who) . . . want to know where they fit in the< >WPS scheme of things.< It depends largely on what they are doing and how they are paid. I'd suggest they review the newly issued WPS rule for crop advisors. To obtain a copy, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM CROPAD95.RUL This rule explains (among other things): "The WPS is not applicable to a person or establishment providing services (including crop advising services) on an agricultural establishment without compensation from the agricultural establishment for those services. For example, the WPS would not apply to extension agents, university researchers and chemical company representatives providing recommendations to growers where the agricultural establishment is not providing compensation for those recommendations." Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Thu May 11 07:55:48 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 HAA17288 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 07:55:43 -0700 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 63; Thu, 11 May 1995 10:51:18 +500 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 10:51:17 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <00990315.9BC97C80.63@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Scope clarification on WPS I finally had the time to review the intepretive guidance workgroup document. I was particularly looking at items that affected the green's industry and was shocked to find the response to Question 14.34 titled production of ag plants for other than direct sale. Can someone please clarify what this means? It appears to me that we have now determined that all golf courses, parks, municipalities, botanical gardens fall within the scope of WPS if they grow plants for their own use. This seems to be a departure from the information given at prep courses and other official EPA forums when the rule first was issued. All these client groups were assured they were not within the scope. How, who is going to inform theme parks, hotel chains, botanical gardens, golf courses and state and local governments that they must now comply with WPS? I was misinformed and I have been misinforming people for 2 years. I was sure that WPS applied only when they intended to sell plants. Joanne Kick-Raack From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu May 11 12:01:00 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 MAA24446 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 12:00:57 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 12:01:06 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: Scope clarification on WPS Joanne, Dandy catch. There was some discussion of this issue on the forum in late March, touched off by a question from Steve Stauffer: > Can anyone tell me what regulations cover the use of pesticides used on > plants frown for botanical gardens and other non-profit uses? Looks like most of us who responded to him had not read the interpretive guidance Q&A either. I jumped into the thread and referred to Charles Nagamine's 9/94 post, which had concluded: > The Agency will gather information on the worker exposures related to these > uses and assess the merits of Including these uses in part 170 or in a > separate regulatlon, at a later time. Until that time non-commercial > crops and greenhouses, etc. look to be exempt. Then Judy Smith, in a moment of remarkable largesse, said (and I'm keeping an enlarged, framed copy of this above my desk): > Howard is correct. She also cited another impeccable authority, the HTC manual, page 17. Among examples given on that page of where the WPS does NOT apply are: " * on plants grown for other than commercial or research purposes, which may include plants in habitations, home fruit and vegetable gardens, and home greenhouses," and " * in a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants, including, for example, control of vegetation along rights-of-way and in other noncrop areas, and structural pest control, such as termite control and wood preservation," One can imagine a rationale for inclusion of park and golf course nurseries similar to the one that chemical sales or lab reps are covered because their work leads to revenue from the grower. If people are paying to play on the golf course or to use the park (even if indirectly through taxes), maybe the nurseries that grow plants for them aren't non-commercial. Nah, too far-fetched. But the IGW answer #14.34 that shocked you, Joanne, is dated 3/15/95 (thus more current than "How to Comply"), and it does appear different from earlier advice. It seems based on a principle that the nature of worker exposure, rather than the use of end product, should be the key determinant of WPS coverage. Howard Rosenberg From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu May 11 12:33:20 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 MAA25615 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 12:33:12 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA02096; Thu, 11 May 1995 15:31:48 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA800231253; Thu, 11 May 95 15:22:16 EST Date: Thu, 11 May 95 15:22:16 EST Message-Id: <9504118002.AA800231253@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Scope clarification on WPS Joanne and other Forum members: Our program office was making the same statement until the IGW Q&A document was released. This issue has been raised to the OPP program office. Letters are coming into Carol Browner requesting that this policy be revisited. Below is an excellent example of the input coming into the Agency; it is quoted verbatim (apologies offered for any uncaught typos) and provides some insights. Judy Smith EPA/Washington 703-305-7666 (Letterhead) GCSAA 1421 Research Park Drive Lawrence Kansas 66049-3859 April 28, 1995 Ms. Carol Browner Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Washington DC 20460 Dear Ms. Browner: Recently, an inter-Agency working group studying the scope of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) concluded that the Standard should be applied to the small turf and ornamental nursery areas operated by some golf courses for their own internal use. I am writing on behalf of the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) to ask you to direct Agency staff to reconsider and reverse this action. We agree that the WPS properly applies to facilities that grow turf or ornamentals for off-site sale. However, we believe that it should not apply to golf courses with small nurseries or greenhouses for on-site replacement and repair, for the following reasons: 1. The decision exceeds the intended scope of the WPS, as communicated to us by the officials who drafted the Standard. The decision hinges on the definitions of two key phrases: "production agriculture" and "commercial." "Production agriculture" clearly refers to a crop that is grown and harvested for sale. "Commercial" implies a transaction or exchange. Bits of sod grown for the purpose of replacing damaged sections of putting surfaces ("greens") do not meet these clear, common-sense definitions. Neither do flowers or shrubs used on the course. Products used strictly for internal replacement and repair purposes. The EPA programming officials who drafted the Standard repeatedly told us that they never intended to include golf course turf plots and greenhouses under WPS. Based on recent discussions with working group participants, it seems that the enforcement officials on the panel felt differently. Apparently, the enforcement officials out-voted the programming officials who defined the rules and wrote the language. Ms. Carol Browner Page 2 April 28, 1995 2. Golf course turf plots and greenhouses are typically very small areas, and are not necessarily segregated from the playing area and grounds. The working group seems to have envisioned a "sod farm" when considering turf plots at golf courses. However, these plots, which are rarely more than one-qquarter acre in size (or 1/600th of an average 18-hole golf course property). Some plots are smaller than 200 square feet. Many golf course "greenhouses" are nothing more than lean-to shelters built with heavy plastic and timber. At their biggest, golf course greenhouses might be roughly as large as those operated by amateur gardeners across the country. We believe the application of WPS rules to a tiny fraction of the overall property is unreasonably burdensome to golf courses and registrants. 3. The decision has a substantial economic and business impact on registrants and creates a serious dilemma for golf course managers. Based on all previous Agency statements about WPS and golf courses, many registrants labeled or re-labeled products designed specifically for golf courses to clearly exclude WPS uses. Now, they face the expensive and time- consuming prospect of re-labeling or "split labeling" to allow the use of their products on a tiny but important fraction of the golf course. Similarly, we as superintendents face the prospect of not being able to treat our turf plots with the same non-WPS products we use on the other 599/600ths of the course. Therefore, a one-square-foot section of turf taken from the plot to replace a damaged area on a green may not have the same growth properties as the rest of that green and may not knit or blend properly. 4. Most importantly, this decision offers no additional protection to our workers. Golf course chemical applicators are among the best-trained and equipped of any user groups. Virtually all are state licensed, even if it is not necessarily required by state law. The products used on greenhouse ornamentals and turf plots would, of necessity, be identical to those used on the playing field and grounds. Thus, a worker using the same registered product under the same label-directed management practices would suddenly be subject to different rules and a different label-- simply for stepping over an imaginary line. We believe the potential for mistakes and injury increases, rather than decreases, with the addition of confusing complications. This decision is particularly upsetting because it was maade with virtually no input from the affected constituents. A check of the record will show that GCSAA and its members have always been supportive of the Agency and its goals. On WPS issues specifically, GCSAA has worked diligently and cooperatively with the Agency over the last eight years. Throughout that time, we were assured by the programming officials that the Standard would not apply to golf facilities, as they were seen to be clearly outside the scope and intent of the law. Ms. Carol Browner Page 3 April 28, 1995 When our association offered to provide information to the working group about the realities of the areas in question and the potential impacts of this decision, we were told that this was not appropriate or necessary. Now, it appears that the working group lacked the necessary information to gauge the true impacts on both users and registrants. GCSAA's members are strongly committed to worker safety and regulatory compliance. They have structured their management, training and communications programs around non-WPS regulations. Now, we face the difficult task of telling them that the Agency has changed its position. This turn-about may damage the trust and goodwill our members have always shared with the EPA. Such a result would be particularly unfortunate at a time when the Agency haas a mandate to serve constituent needs more effectively and to reduce unreasonable regulation. GCSAA is a progressive organization that cares deeply about worker safety, risk reduction and environmental protection. It is our objective to be recognized as a model environmental industry. We do not object to reasonable regulation merely because it may involve sone inconvenience. However, we fail to understand the Agency's rationale in this decision. Under this ruling, registrants spend money unnecessarily and our management practices are complicated substantially, but workers are not protected any more effectively -- and perhaps less effectively. We champion the EPA's role in protecting and preserving human health and the environment. However, we do not believe that this ruling fulfills the intent of the law or furthers the EPA's mission. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Agency take prompt and appropriate steps to reconsider and reverse this action before enforcement begins in earnest. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. If you or your staff desire any additional information, GCSAA is always happy to oblige. Sincerely, (signed) Gary T. Grigg, CGCS President GTG:pj cc: GCSAA Board of Directors GCSAA Goverment Relations Committee GCSAA Executive Staff Dr. Lynn Goldman, Assistant Administrator, Programs for Prevention, Pesticcides and Toxic Substances Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Phyllis Flaherty, Branch Chief, Agriculture From AWALLER@mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us Thu May 11 14:10:59 1995 Received: from nic.state.mn.us (root@nic.state.mn.us [156.98.1.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA29058 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 14:10:56 -0700 Received: from mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us by nic.state.mn.us (8.6.9/) id QAA13788; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:10:57 -0500 Received: from MDA-AG/MAILQ by mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 11 May 95 16:10:59 CST Received: from MAILQ by MDA-AG (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 11 May 95 16:10:53 CST To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: "ALICE WALLER" Organization: Minnesota Dept of Agriculture Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 16:10:53 CST6CDT Subject: Re: Let's just ignore labels Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Message-ID: <58648931505@mda-ag.mda.state.mn.us> > What about the rest of you WPS-Forum participants? Do you enforce label> statements such as the "Avoid getting on eye, skin, or clothing" or "Do> not breathe fumes?" If so, I believe immediate changes need to be made to > virtually all (including California's) pesticide applicator training > materials. > Hello all, In Minnesota, we do consider the above language to be advisory in nature and don't take enfocement action. -- Alice Waller MN Dept of Agriculture AWALLER@MDA-AG.MDA.STATE.MN.US From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Thu May 11 14:21:15 1995 Received: from mail.tamu.edu (MAIL.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA29338 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 14:21:13 -0700 Received: from [128.194.212.5] (profharry.tamu.edu [128.194.212.5]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA22816 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 16:21:08 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 16:21:38 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: Re: Scope clarification on WPS >One can imagine a rationale for inclusion of park and golf course nurseries >similar to the one that chemical sales or lab reps are covered because >their work leads to revenue from the grower. If people are paying to play >on the golf course or to use the park (even if indirectly through taxes), >maybe the nurseries that grow plants for them aren't non-commercial. Nah, >too far-fetched. > >But the IGW answer #14.34 that shocked you, Joanne, is dated 3/15/95 (thus >more current than "How to Comply"), and it does appear different from >earlier advice. It seems based on a principle that the nature of worker >exposure, rather than the use of end product, should be the key determinant >of WPS coverage. > >Howard Rosenberg In a botanical garden, it is not only the workers that must be protected from pesticide exposure. For instance 50,000 students in grades K through 12 are now participating in the Moody Gardens Rainforest Exibit educational enrichment program each month. Some places like Longwood Gardens have nearly a million visitors each year. Many keep there heads above water with the help of dozens or even hundreds of volunteer workers. Steve _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ Steve Stauffer, Research Assistant (409)847-8967 (voice) Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University (409)845-7977 (fax) College Station, TX 77843-2475 rss2987@acs.tamu.edu _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Thu May 11 15:22:37 1995 Received: from mail.tamu.edu (MAIL.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA02001 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 15:22:34 -0700 Received: from [128.194.212.5] (profharry.tamu.edu [128.194.212.5]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA27329 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 17:22:31 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 17:22:59 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: Re: Scope clarification on WPS Fools rush in... For what it's worth, here's one fool's thoughts on GCSAA's letter to Carol Browner: >> Recently, an inter-Agency working group studying the scope > of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) concluded that the > Standard should be applied to the small turf and > ornamental nursery areas operated by some golf courses for > their own internal use. I am writing on behalf of the Golf > Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) to ask > you to direct Agency staff to reconsider and reverse this action. > > We agree that the WPS properly applies to facilities that grow > turf or ornamentals for off-site sale. However, we believe that > it should not apply to golf courses with small nurseries or > greenhouses for on-site replacement and repair, for the following > reasons: > > 1. The decision exceeds the intended scope of the WPS, > as communicated to us by the officials who drafted the > Standard. The decision hinges on the definitions of > two key phrases: "production agriculture" and > "commercial." "Production agriculture" clearly refers > to a crop that is grown and harvested for sale. > "Commercial" implies a transaction or exchange. > > Bits of sod grown for the purpose of replacing > damaged sections of putting surfaces ("greens") > do not meet these clear, common-sense definitions. > Neither do flowers or shrubs used on the course. > Products used strictly for internal replacement and > repair purposes. > > The EPA programming officials who drafted the Standard > repeatedly told us that they never intended to include > golf course turf plots and greenhouses under WPS. > Based on recent discussions with working group > participants, it seems that the enforcement officials > on the panel felt differently. Apparently, the > enforcement officials out-voted the programming > officials who defined the rules and wrote the > language. This is more a temper tantrum than a reasoned argument. > 2. Golf course turf plots and greenhouses are typically > very small areas, and are not necessarily segregated > from the playing area and grounds. The working group > seems to have envisioned a "sod farm" when considering > turf plots at golf courses. However, these plots, which > are rarely more than one-qquarter acre in size (or > 1/600th of an average 18-hole golf course property). > Some plots are smaller than 200 square feet. Many > golf course "greenhouses" are nothing more than lean-to > shelters built with heavy plastic and timber. At their > biggest, golf course greenhouses might be roughly as > large as those operated by amateur gardeners across > the country. Like they say, it's not the size, it's how you use it. > We believe the application of WPS rules to a tiny > fraction of the overall property is unreasonably > burdensome to golf courses and registrants. This is an argument for including all parts of golfcourses under WPS. > 3. The decision has a substantial economic and business > impact on registrants and creates a serious dilemma > for golf course managers. Based on all previous > Agency statements about WPS and golf courses, many > registrants labeled or re-labeled products designed > specifically for golf courses to clearly exclude > WPS uses. Now, they face the expensive and time- > consuming prospect of re-labeling or "split labeling" > to allow the use of their products on a tiny but > important fraction of the golf course. > > Similarly, we as superintendents face the prospect > of not being able to treat our turf plots with the > same non-WPS products we use on the other 599/600ths > of the course. Therefore, a one-square-foot section > of turf taken from the plot to replace a damaged area > on a green may not have the same growth properties as > the rest of that green and may not knit or blend > properly. This is an argument for including all parts of golfcourses under WPS. > 4. Most importantly, this decision offers no additional > protection to our workers. Golf course chemical > applicators are among the best-trained and equipped of > any user groups. Some are, some aren't. > Virtually all are state licensed, > even if it is not necessarily required by state law. > The products used on greenhouse ornamentals and turf > plots would, of necessity, be identical to those > used on the playing field and grounds. Thus, a worker > using the same registered product under the same > label-directed management practices would suddenly > be subject to different rules and a different label-- > simply for stepping over an imaginary line. > Again, this is an argument for including all parts of golfcourses under WPS. > This decision is particularly upsetting because it was made with > virtually no input from the affected constituents. Perhaps the problem is that there was too much input by 'affected constituents' to begin with. The origional exemption seems based less on science and safety, and more on political considerations. > A check of the > record will show that GCSAA and its members have always been > supportive of the Agency and its goals. Perhaps this is true of GCSAA, but my experience with turf and golfcourse managers at conferences and trade shows is that they view EPA the way the militias view ATF (i.e., jackbooted thugs). > GCSAA is a progressive organization that cares deeply about > worker safety, risk reduction and environmental protection. It > is our objective to be recognized as a model environmental > industry. We do not object to reasonable regulation merely > because it may involve sone inconvenience. However, we fail > to understand the Agency's rationale in this decision. Are WPS regulations designed to protect workers from pesticide exposure or not? Are golfcourse workers exposed to pesticides or not? If they are, why should golfcourse owners/managers expect their operations to be exempt? For that matter, why should pesticides applied on rangeland or livestock premises or rights-of-way be exempt? _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ Steve Stauffer, Research Assistant (409)847-8967 (voice) Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University (409)845-7977 (fax) College Station, TX 77843-2475 rss2987@acs.tamu.edu _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Thu May 11 18:14:00 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 SAA06316 for ; Thu, 11 May 1995 18:13:58 -0700 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA13822; Thu, 11 May 1995 20:16:12 -0500 Message-Id: <9505120116.AA13822@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 20:13:35 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) Subject: Chem reps and University researchers X-Mailer: Al French pointed out the following statement from the Fed Reg: >"The WPS is not applicable to a person or establishment >providing services (including crop advising services) on an >agricultural establishment without compensation from the >agricultural establishment for those services. For example, >the WPS would not apply to extension agents, university >researchers and chemical company representatives >providing recommendations to growers where the agricultural >establishment is not providing compensation for those >recommendations." (FedReg 60 @ 21950 (May 3, 1995)). I have several questions concerning this statement. If a chemical company representative is applying pesticides on a research field plot that the farmer planted, is the chemical company representative and his/her employees covered by the WPS? The farmer is not paying the chemical company representative but the chemical company representative may be paying the farmer. What if the chemical company representative planted the crop? From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri May 12 04:37:34 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 EAA11737 for ; Fri, 12 May 1995 04:37:31 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id HAA07178; Fri, 12 May 1995 07:37:29 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id HAA10017; Fri, 12 May 1995 07:38:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 07:13:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Scope clarification on WPS To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I would like to clarify one issue raised by the recent IGW interpretation on WPS scope. The WPS does NOT cover pesticides applied on plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, golf courses, and public or private lawns and grounds and that are intended only for decorative or environmental purposes. The How To Comply manual that Judy Smith quoted earlier was (and still is) correct. It is my understanding that the new IGW interpretation concerns plants grown by such entities in nurseries (or greenhouses) to be transplanted to the ornamental garden, park, golf course, etc. The IGW determined that plants grown in such nurseries were being grown for a "commercial" purposes, since they are being grown specifically to be transplanted to a commercial operation. The employees covered by the WPS are those who handle pesticides for use in the nursery operation or who perform tasks involving the plants while they are being grown in the nursery. Once the plants are transplanted into the ornamental garden, park, golf course, etc., the WPS no longer applies. Employees who handle pesticides for use on the plants or who perform tasks involving the transplanted plants are NOT covered by the WPS. This doesn't answer Joanne's concern, but I hope it helps to indicate why the How To Comply manual (and Judy Smith's original answer) were correct. For another of my two-cents worth of explanation. Perhaps employees in ornamental gardens, parks, golf courses, etc. should be protected by a worker protection standard. When EPA issued the current WPS, the Response To Comments document indicated that many comments had been received about the possible inclusion of other handlers and workers. EPA determined that expanding the scope at that time was not feasible and that all the issues concerning such an expansion were not fully explored. One obvious problem with these public facilities is the meaning of a restricted-entry interval -- would the public (golfers, etc) be excluded during the REI or just employees. The Agency deferred to the future a decision about including non-agricultural plant pesticides in the scope, but because there is no concern, but because it did not yet have the time to fully explore the issues. -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Fri May 12 08:48:56 1995 Received: from mailbox.econ.ag.gov (MAILBOX.econ.ag.gov [151.121.64.123]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA14327 for ; Fri, 12 May 1995 08:48:54 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 12 May 1995 11:47:38 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 12:47:44 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Chem reps and University researchers -Reply >If a chemical company representative is applying< >pesticides on a research field plot that the farmer< >planted, is the chemical company representative and< >his/her employees covered by the WPS?< It depends. The WPS applies to growing plants for research purposes but not in the case of research uses of unregistered pesticides. See definitions on page 38151 of the WPS, exceptions and exemptions on page 38161, and section 14.19 of the Interpretive Guidance. Also, the crop advisor provisions of WPS apply only if performing crop advising tasks. >What if the chemical company representative planted the< >crop?< Who is doing what, on a case by case basis, might determine whether the company, the farm owner, or the farm manager is responsible for compliance, but WPS coverage would still be determined as described above. I believe farmers should be very chary of any assumption they are not responsible for the actions of others. There seem to be many instances in which farm owners would be held jointly responsible with other employers. While there are arguments that may be made against joint responsibility that might prevail, it could be very expensive to make them. IMHO, the safest thing to do is to be sure everyone on the farm is in compliance. That would be the safest thing for the farmer, --and also the workers. I hope this helps. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs alfrench@sies.wsc.ag.gov 202/720-4737 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon May 15 07:49:00 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 HAA28906 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 07:48:58 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.941228sam) id KAA11411; Mon, 15 May 1995 10:48:26 -0400 Date: 15 May 95 10:45:34 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Let's just ignore it Message-ID: <950515144534_73507.555_HHB78-1@CompuServe.COM> My comments on enforcement of the label may have been misinterpreted. I was not saying that users should be cited for failing to wear PPE not required by the label. I was saying that label statements such as directives to avoid contact with skin, eyes and clothing are enforceable. If an applicator is found, for example, spraying in the wind with hand-held equipment with the spray blowing back into his face, they are not complying with the label. However, those of you who think that label statements you think are unreasonable or difficult to comply with should be ignored with impunity do have an attractive position. Even Judy Smith of the U.S EPA refers to such statements as "boiler plate" and is of the opinion that citing a handler for failure to comply with them would be a "futile effort." As Al French points out, all the WPS is now an extension of the label. Can we just disregard any WPS "boiler plate" that is in our opinion unreasonable or difficult to comply with? That suits me. I am thinking of some of the double-notification pesticide warning requirements. For example, in the Central Coast area of California a field may have been treated with disulfoton a quarter of a mile away. It was injected into the soil so there is really no chance of contact even if the field was entered. A quarter of a mile and a dozen fields away (our average lot size is about 12 acres) a crew employed by a labor contractor arrives at their work site in a bus to thin a lettuce field. They do not leave the immediate area of the work site. The WPS requires that this crew be orally warned of an application they are never going to approach and could not be put at much risk even if they did. Just to make it more interesting and realistic, there are several fields requiring dual notification and a dozen or so other crews on the ranch, working for labor contractors, harvest companies, application companies, etc., none under the absolute control of the property operator. Can we just ignore it? Why not, if we can ignore label directions to avoid exposure to pesticides we should be able to ignore warning requirements that eliminate no risk whatsoever and are nearly impossible to comply with. ****************************************************************** "Men hate the truth. They would rather meet a tiger in the road." - Robinson Jeffers Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Mon May 15 09:36:43 1995 Received: from hinc.hinc.hawaii.gov ([199.74.168.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA01149 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 09:36:41 -0700 Received: by hinc.hawaii.gov (5.0/SMI-4.1) id AA28730; Mon, 15 May 1995 06:29:14 -1000 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 06:29:14 -1000 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" To: wps forum Subject: Worker Protection Q & A's Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 932 I finally got to review the questions and answers put out by the Interpretive Guidance Workgroup. I have some concern over question 5.18. It asks if an "*unprotected* worker may enter an REI *immediately* after the application if it is for activities with 'no contact.'" The answer given is yes if inhalation exposure levels or ventilation criteria have been reached and the person entering will have no contact with anything that has been treated. I may have received a faulty copy, but mine makes no reference to this being a greenhouse application. Nor does it list any other conditions. Under both "old" and "new" standards, this answer is not entirely accurate. My concern is that some readers may receive the wrong message, one that throws all REIs out the window. Perhaps someone from the IGW could clarify--or was my copy faulty along with my reading comprehension? Gerald Hawaii Department of Agriculture From gkinro@hinc.hawaii.gov Mon May 15 10:09:19 1995 Received: from hinc.hinc.hawaii.gov ([199.74.168.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA02181 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 10:09:15 -0700 Received: by hinc.hawaii.gov (5.0/SMI-4.1) id AA28956; Mon, 15 May 1995 07:01:49 -1000 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 07:01:48 -1000 (HST) From: "Gerald Y. Kinro" To: wps forum Subject: Questions and answers Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 284 If I may back-pedal on my earlier post regarding early entry. The opinion given by the IGW is consistent with no-contact provisions of the WPS. There still, however, seems to be a need to clarify between no-contact and limited-contact. I see the confusion starting. Gerald HDOA From millert@oes.orst.edu Mon May 15 11:25:59 1995 Received: from OES.ORST.EDU (OES.ORST.EDU [128.193.124.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA04712 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 11:25:58 -0700 Received: by OES.ORST.EDU id AA14451 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3); Mon, 15 May 95 11:05:46 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 11:05:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Terry Miller Subject: Irrigation Worker Exception To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Terry Miller Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NOTE: All states with irrigated crops...does this change adversely affect agriculture in your state? An important change somehow took place between the proposed irrigation exception and the final exception...a condition for early entry by irrigation workers has changed from "The tasks could not be delayed until after expiration of the restricted-entry interval..." to "The need for the task could not have been foreseen and cannot be delayed until after the expiration of the REI" - see statements from proposed and final exceptions below. The important change is that not only must it not be possible to DELAY the irrigation task, but now the irrigation task must ALSO not have been FORESEEN. This change seems to me to make the irrigation exception unworkable for most of agriculture - while the final exception accomodates the unforeseen availability of water, say in an irrigation ditch, the exception does nothing to accomodate irrigation activities which must take place, albeit foreseen, during the REI. EPA has decided, on the basis of evidence submitted and subject to other restrictions in the final exception, that irrigation tasks can be conducted as low contact activities - thus the allowance of 8 hours in a 24 hour period. Given this, it seems to me that the "could not have been foreseen" clause is not needed - the presence of this condition makes the exception unworkable. What was the reason for the change, anyway? There is also a great deal of confusion about this in the user community - most things I read in trade magazines state, and people I talk with think, that only the condition of "could not be delayed" still applies. Anyone else have similar concerns??? _________________________________________________ *** The proposed exception was: C. Proposed Terms of Exception (2) The tasks could not be delayed until after expiration of the restricted-entry interval or the pesticide application could not be delayed until after the task is completed. *** The final exception states: IV. Terms of the Exception 1. The need for the task could not have been foreseen and cannot be delayed until after the expiration of the REI. A task that cannot be delayed is one that, if not performed before the REI expires, would cause significant economic loss, and there are no alternative practices which would prevent significant loss. From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Mon May 15 12:47:50 1995 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA07271 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 12:47:45 -0700 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.10/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id MAA14667 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 12:47:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 12:47:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199505151947.MAA14667@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Irrigation Worker Exception TERRY MILLER'S comments on IRRIGATION CHANGE OLD "The tasks **could not be delayed** until after expiration of the restricted-entry interval..." PRESENT "The need for the task **could not have been foreseen and cannot be delayed** until after the expiration of the REI" The important change is that not only must it not be possible to DELAY the irrigation task, but now the irrigation task must ALSO not have been FORESEEN. Concern in WASHINGTON STATE There are a few crops in Washington State (as well as other states I am sure) where irrigation is a DAILY occurence. If a pesticide application is required during the growing (irrigation) season, how can the irrigation manager or worker check the water lines and pumps if NO CONTACT can not be guaranteed. The irrigation activity and the pesticide application are both FORESEEN and crop damage/failure can result if irrigation does not occur daily. -- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From gimike@netcom.com Mon May 15 16:01:26 1995 Received: from netcom9.netcom.com (gimike@netcom9.netcom.com [192.100.81.119]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA13347 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 16:01:24 -0700 Received: by netcom9.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id QAA00890; Mon, 15 May 1995 16:01:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 16:01:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Barrowman Subject: EH&S Book/Course Catalogue by E-Mail To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Here is an opportunity to recieve information on worker safety, agronomy, the environment, and natural resources, without using any paper. :) Government Institutes, the leading publisher and seminar leader in environmental health and safety management is offering free information on our books and courses by email. Every month we will send you a single message containing a brief description of our new books, electronic information products, videos, and courses. Our publications and courses concentrate on environmental management, complying with EPA and OSHA regulations, health and safety management, and environmental engineering and science. We also distribute the Code of Federal Regulations and other government (US and some INTL) documents. Among our recent courses and publications are: Natural Resource Damages OSHA Compliance Handbook Health & Saftety Risk Management: Guide for designing an effective program CFRs on CD Rom Wetlands Delineation Manual Waste Minimization Manual Eco-Data "Using your PC to Obtain Free Environmental Info" on the INTERNET The Environmental Guide to the Internet (Book and Course) To subscribe to this free service Send an email message to giinfo@aol.com Or Just reply to me at gimike@netcom.com Please don't send it back to the list, though. Either way, we will get the catalog out to you! In the body of the message, write your email address, your name and organizational affiliation, and the name of the newsgroup or mailing list where you read this message. Government Institutes will not send unsolicited "junk" email to you. We are offering this email catalogue as an environmentally responsible means of communicating news about our publications and courses to customers around the world. If you have questions about our offerings, please feel free to call us at 301-921-2300 during East Coast business hours. Thank you for your interest. Mike From PDOWNER@clover.uvm.edu Tue May 16 09:29:13 1995 Received: from uvmvm.uvm.edu (uvmvm.uvm.edu [132.198.111.8]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA24810 for ; Tue, 16 May 1995 09:29:09 -0700 Received: from clover.uvm.edu by uvmvm.uvm.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Tue, 16 May 95 12:29:05 EST Received: from CLOVER/MAILQUEUE by clover.uvm.edu (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 16 May 95 12:28:38 GMT-5 Received: from MAILQUEUE by CLOVER (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 16 May 95 12:28:24 GMT-5 From: "Pat Downer" Organization: University of Vermont To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 12:28:16 EST Subject: labels we can read Priority: normal X-mailer: PMail v3.0 (R1a) Message-ID: To whom can we (growers) make suggestions about pesticide labels? The contradictions between label information and recommendations that are being discused right now stem from the fact that labels are not adequately standardized. How hard would it be to require that labels follow a stricter format? Any manufacturer that still thinks labels are advertisements and need to be "classy" is dangerously wrong. We don't browse shelves comparing labels... we just need the information and we don't need it to look pretty. It would be a whole lot easier if the particular information items were in the same location on the label layout for all materials and if wording were clearly defined and standardized. One serious problem with labels is that the print is often too small for people over 40 to read! Yes, there needs to always be a label attached to the pesticide container that contains the basic information, BUT ALSO a complete label that is NOT attached to the container. That non-attached label should NOT be contaminated with pesticides either -- it should be suitable for inserting in a 3-ring binder that can be safely brought into an office or home and not smell just like the pesticide it describes! -- talk about "avoid breathing..." There should be a larger minimum size print allowed, and a pesticide-free label (NOT a little booklet attached to the container in a plastic sleeve or in the fold of the WP bag!) for studying -- how carefully can we read a label when we're standing there with our gloves, respirator, goggles, suit and hat on? And it's barely dawn at that. Obviously, we want to read the label carefully BEFORE application time and NOT with protective gear on... so it should NOT be attached to nor have ever been attached to what might be a messy container. Pat Downer Grower in reference to: >I think you are absolutely wrong. Label statements concerning >avoiding exposure with pesticides are not merely advisory. Such >statements are being enforced in California. If the U.S. EPA and the >manufacturers do not intend for the user to follow such directions, >why did they put them on the label? Why do you think it is impossible >to apply a pesticide and not get it on your eyes, skin or clothing? >I expect pesticide users to take reasonable precautions to comply with >such label directions. Sorry Bob, but I'll have to stick up for Sally. The labels IMHO have gotten way out of hand with lots of the repetitive useless blather that make them difficult to read, and encourage ignorance. After all, you're not supposed to stick your finger in your eye either, but the last time I checked, I didn't have a tattoo on the tip telling me NOT to stick it in my eye. Yes, it's possible to spray pesticides without getting them on your eyes skin and clothing, but accidents do happen. If interpreted literally, however, meaningless phrases like "do not breathe" are ridiculously unenforceable. What about the guy 50 yards down wind of the handler who gets a 2 PPT whiff of pesticide? Does having this statement on the label mean he's subject to an enforcement action? If so, what is the minimum PPT inhalation level subject to enforcement? Who's going to pay for all of the enforcement personnel? If the label says to wear goggles, why is it necessary to say 'don't get it in your eye'? That seems pretty repetitive to me, and (not to leave you out Al), we'll soon need bigger jugs to put all of that text on. From pbaker@ag.Arizona.EDU Tue May 16 16:30:00 1995 Received: from ag.Arizona.EDU (Ag.Arizona.EDU [128.196.42.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA07575 for ; Tue, 16 May 1995 16:29:47 -0700 Received: by ag.Arizona.EDU (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03150; Tue, 16 May 1995 16:29:37 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 16:29:36 -0700 (MST) From: Paul B Baker To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: labels we can read In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Pat, I could not agree more with the standardization of labels. If we all, and I mean ALL in the industry, had address this issue a number of years back, we would not be dealing with these problems today. In fact the print size should only be the being of the issue of labels. Thank You for your comments. Paul B. <^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> < Paul Baker, Ph.D. (520) 621-4012 > < Pesticide Coordinator's Office (520) 621-4013 FAX > < Department of Entomology pbaker@ag.arizona.edu > < University of Arizona > < 1109 E. Helen > < Tucson, AZ 85719 > < > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On Tue, 16 May 1995, Pat Downer wrote: > > To whom can we (growers) make suggestions about pesticide labels? > > The contradictions between label information and recommendations that are > being discused right now stem from the fact that labels are not adequately > standardized. How hard would it be to require that labels follow a > stricter format? Any manufacturer that still thinks labels are > advertisements and need to be "classy" is dangerously wrong. We don't > browse shelves comparing labels... we just need the information and we > don't need it to look pretty. It would be a whole lot easier if the > particular information items were in the same location on the label layout > for all materials and if wording were clearly defined and standardized. > > One serious problem with labels is that the print is often too small for > people over 40 to read! Yes, there needs to always be a label attached to > the pesticide container that contains the basic information, BUT ALSO a > complete label that is NOT attached to the container. That non-attached > label should NOT be contaminated with pesticides either -- it should be > suitable for inserting in a 3-ring binder that can be safely brought into > an office or home and not smell just like the pesticide it describes! -- > talk about "avoid breathing..." > > There should be a larger minimum size print allowed, and a pesticide-free > label (NOT a little booklet attached to the container in a plastic sleeve > or in the fold of the WP bag!) for studying -- how carefully can we read a > label when we're standing there with our gloves, respirator, goggles, suit > and hat on? And it's barely dawn at that. Obviously, we want to read the > label carefully BEFORE application time and NOT with protective gear > on... so it should NOT be attached to nor have ever been attached to what > might be a messy container. > > Pat Downer > Grower > > in reference to: > > >I think you are absolutely wrong. Label statements concerning > >avoiding exposure with pesticides are not merely advisory. Such > >statements are being enforced in California. If the U.S. EPA and the > >manufacturers do not intend for the user to follow such directions, > >why did they put them on the label? Why do you think it is impossible > >to apply a pesticide and not get it on your eyes, skin or clothing? > >I expect pesticide users to take reasonable precautions to comply with > >such label directions. > > Sorry Bob, but I'll have to stick up for Sally. The labels IMHO have gotten > way out of hand with lots of the repetitive useless blather that make them > difficult to read, and encourage ignorance. After all, you're not supposed > to stick your finger in your eye either, but the last time I checked, I > didn't have a tattoo on the tip telling me NOT to stick it in my eye. Yes, > it's possible to spray pesticides without getting them on your eyes skin and > clothing, but accidents do happen. If interpreted literally, however, > meaningless phrases like "do not breathe" are ridiculously unenforceable. > What about the guy 50 yards down wind of the handler who gets a 2 PPT whiff > of pesticide? Does having this statement on the label mean he's subject to > an enforcement action? If so, what is the minimum PPT inhalation level > subject to enforcement? Who's going to pay for all of the enforcement > personnel? If the label says to wear goggles, why is it necessary to say > 'don't get it in your eye'? That seems pretty repetitive to me, and (not to > leave you out Al), we'll soon need bigger jugs to put all of that text on. > > From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed May 17 15:22:06 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 PAA28312 for ; Wed, 17 May 1995 15:22:04 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 17 May 1995 15:22:39 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 15:22:15 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: millert@oes.orst.edu Subject: Irrigation Worker Exception -Reply I too have serious concerns about the recent Irrigator exception. It will be very tough for growers to argue that the irrigation could not have been foreseen. Maybe, if there is a sudden hot spell. There is another point that all should be aware of. The exception does not cover all irrigation. It only covers irrigation that meets the "limited contact" definition. The irrigator's contact must be both minimal and occurring only on the "outer" extremities to qualify for the 8 hours. Otherwise it is still limited to 1 hour. Check it out. As it now stands, I see no reason for separate limited contact and irrigator exceptions. In fact, the "final draft" of the California implementing regulations combines them into one exception. There is one over-riding concern about the WPS that keeps nagging at me as we discuss some of these issues. Have we lost sight of the forest for the trees? All of this esoteric discussion fails to address the basic point: Are we mitigating real risks to fieldworkers or we engaged in legal gymnastics? Have we forgotten that all this depends, in the end, on individual fieldworkers and handlers understanding and following the information and instructions given to them by the employer? Are we really helping them in the long run or just making work for attorneys? Is the whole point of this to construct something which can be used to extract money from businesses through fines for inadvertent omissions? The U. S. EPA keeps talking about making decisions based on their fear of being sued. By whom? Labor interest groups? Grower organizations? I submit that this is a poor basis for making decisions! A decision should be made with the full realization that it is either right or it is wrong; then reevaluated to determine if it is, in fact, right or wrong. If anyone wants the courts involved, all it takes is a piece of paper and the filing fee! Fly to it. I would like to hear some comment on these points from the labor point of view. Is there anyone on the forum that could provide this imput? I have had some discussions with individuals who have had or are from families that have had fieldwork experience and they reinforce my concerns. RoyR From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed May 17 15:54:27 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 PAA29635 for ; Wed, 17 May 1995 15:54:25 -0700 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 17 May 1995 15:54:48 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 15:54:16 -0700 To: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Scope clarification on WPS -Reply Steve put his 2 cents worth in about the golf courses and the scope of the WPS. Well, here's my 2 cents worth-so there is now 4 cents in the pot. If one is using a WPS labeled product on a site, then one must believe that the site is included within the scope of the intended use pattern of that product. I fail to see how one can then turn around and claim to not be covered by the use requirements pertaining to that use pattern and site. Perhaps, if it is a dual use product this argument could actually be made. This would also apply to the "retail" nursery question also. This is a double edged sword folks. RoyR From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed May 17 16:08:18 1995 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA00365 for ; Wed, 17 May 1995 16:08:16 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 17 May 1995 16:08:51 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 16:04:12 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: Let's just ignore it -Reply ??Are all these field workers who arrive at a field, or a dozen fields, within one-quarter of a mile of your averaged-size-12-acre-field that is treated with a dual-notice pesticide, employed by the owner/operator of the treated field?? If not, they don't require notification by the owner/operator of the treated field, ?RIGHT? From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed May 17 16:18:24 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 QAA00703 for ; Wed, 17 May 1995 16:18:22 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 17 May 1995 16:18:54 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 16:14:03 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Cc: millert@oes.orst.edu Subject: Irrigation Worker Exception -Reply -Reply Hey Roy and all others: ??Does not the requirement for irrigators and fieldworkers to wear eye protection, when eye protection is required by the label, to qualify for the exemptions cause any concerns?? Adolfo R. MarvinGallo "Some people hate BabyRuths, and would rather eat a Snickers-on-a-toad." From kaiser@ssnet.com Wed May 17 21:11:49 1995 Received: from marlin.ssnet.com (ssnet.com [165.113.8.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id VAA04262 for ; Wed, 17 May 1995 21:11:45 -0700 Received: by marlin.ssnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12717; Thu, 18 May 95 00:05:37 EDT Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 00:05:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Roger Kaiser To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Reading labels -Please not more regulation! (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Regarding the proposals of Pat Downer on new labels. It may indeed be time for new rules on writing labels. As we have seen from some of the comments, many of the contradictions and problems with the labels come from the several layers of regulations that have been added over the years. Caution statements such as "Avoid breathing vapor..." are required based on the toxicology of the product. Other statements are required based on WPS. These two sets of rules do not always fit well together. However a call for more regulation is not a solution. Please do not open this Pandora's box! History has taught us that there is never less regulation. Many companies provide labels that fit into 3 ring binders. Most companies give away product manuals that contain all the labels of products produced by that company. These are usually printed in large type. Nearly all of these labels follow a common format. The solution to the problem is simple. Deal with a company that provides service. The product may cost a little more, but you will get a clean label that you can study the night before in the comfort of your home. I will stop before I get into more trouble. However just one new question. Is there more than one WPS Safety Poster that has been approved by the EPA? If I decide to use my own Poster, do I need it approved first? If I do not, what happens if the inspector thinks it doesn't cover the required points well enough? Is this an example of a regulation with too much detail? Roger Kaiser ISK Biosciences From ray@acpa.org Thu May 18 08:05:33 1995 Received: from wposmtp.acpa.org (acpa.org [204.4.34.35]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA09723 for ; Thu, 18 May 1995 08:05:28 -0700 Received: from MAIN-Message_Server by wposmtp.acpa.org with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 18 May 1995 11:10:00 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 11:08:02 -0500 From: ray@acpa.org To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: Readable pesticide labels Pat Downer complained eloquently about the difficulties in reading pesticide labels. Responsible manufacturers and EPA personnel are acutely aware of the problems and addressing them. We both blame regulations that require inane statements of the obvious and lengthy precautionary statements. (Sidebar: I recently purchased a small item in a plastic bag with a carboard contents label folded over the open end and stapled -- typical consumer product packaging. In small print on the back of the label was a warning the the points of the staples may be sharp.) For example, if a registrant chooses not to conduct particular studies regading aquatic toxicity of the product, he may be required put a warning on the label that "this product may be toxic to fish, keep out of water." (I'm not certain of the technical accuracy of this example, but it illustrates what we are up against.) EPA's Labeling Unit in the Office of Pesticide Programs is making some progress on improvement of labels. They have begun initiatives with industry to improve format, readability, and understandability. Specific companies are way out in front on this issue with their own initiatives. You can address your specific concerns and suggestions to Steve Morrill who heads the Labeling Unit (morrill.stephen@epamail.epa.gov). I'm open to suggestions also and will pass along what I receive as well as what I find on the WPS-Forum to the industry committess I work with. Ray S. McAllister, Director of Regulatory Affairs American Crop Protection Association Voice: 202-872-3874 e-mail: ray@acpa.org From afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Thu May 18 09:35:46 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA12593 for ; Thu, 18 May 1995 09:35:42 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id MAA07321; Thu, 18 May 1995 12:30:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 12:30:33 -0400 Message-Id: <199505181630.MAA07321@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Gary Fish) Subject: What's the big deal Why are we so up tight about the WPS when EPA just dropped the proposed amendments to CFR Part 171 (The Federal Certification of pesticide applicators minimum standards)? Until we can have each state actually requiring examinations for certification of applicators and preferrably closed book examinations, how can we get so hung up on WPS? If you can train handlers and workers just because you are a certified applicator that went to a three hour training session, took no exam and became a full fledged certified applicator what does this say about the quality of training these people will receive? We need to be more concerned about licensed applicators being able to read and understand labels and labeling than we need to spend time getting hung up on the interpretation of the WPS. Do your best to make the program satisfy the core goals of protecting people from pesticide exposure and leave it at that. States can handle it on their own, as they have with other Federal EPA laws and regulations. EPA and Congress can give us the template, we have to fill in the particulars to fit our own worker protection, agricultural and commercial application situations. So there. Just a humble regulator from the state of Maine. Gary Fish From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Fri May 19 06:05:37 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 GAA10594 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 06:05:35 -0700 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 45; Fri, 19 May 1995 09:05:30 +500 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 09:05:30 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <00990950.27946280.45@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: Scope clarification on WPS -Reply You cannot assume. There are dual use products. For example, on one common turf product, there is the new "Ag use Reguirements" box which references WPS and lists the reentry interval etc. and a non-ag use section which is the information for those to whom the WPS does not apply. For example, a grower who produces sod is under WPS and follows the ag use directions. Lawn care companies were specifically excluded. Both of these applicators may be using the same product. The question I had was not whether we should protect all people. WPS is a regulation with a defined scope in law. Information on the scope is found on pages 16 and 17 in the How-to-comply. As always, the world is not nice and neat. Some uses are in a "gray" area. I was concerned about what appeared to me to be a switch in interpretation on some uses. A tremendous amount of outreach has occurred over the past two years and when things are reinterpreted and redefined it becomes a difficult communication problem for educators and extremely frustrating for conscientious employers. Joanne Kick-Raack From CBeytes@aol.com Fri May 19 06:18:36 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 GAA10749 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 06:18:34 -0700 From: CBeytes@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA089569483; Fri, 19 May 1995 09:18:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 09:18:03 -0400 Message-Id: <950519091802_124269727@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Now biologicals are a threat? A sidenote to WPS: First EPA gave us WPS, then APHIS changed Quarantine 37, now the feds are at it again. Has anyone heard that APHIS has proposed regulations ('Introduction of non-indigenous organisms', published in the January Federal Register) that would make beneficial predator and parasitic insects "indirect plant pests," and put their production, distribution and use under APHIS control. This issue has gone unnoticed, until TAMU prof Kevin Heinz brought it to our attention. He says that right now APHIS has no authority over insects that don't feed directly on plants. Some groups (EXTREME environmentalists, I assume) worry that non-indiginous insects used for biological control could attack non-target pests or plants. Kevin says there's little or no evidence to support that fear. The cost for testing and registering biologicals could put the fledgling biological controls industry out of business. Especially if costs wind up being similar to what chemical companies pay to test and register new chemicals, $20 to $40 million. At a public hearing in California in March, reps of the biologicals industry, along with entomologists and large agribusinesses such as Dole and Campbell's, which depend so heavily on predators that they have their own insectories, argued against APHIS's proposal. Will they listen? Past performance suggests otherwise. I find it absurd that the govt. has worked so hard to protect workers by restricting chemical use, yet at the same time may seriously reduce or eliminate the use of one of the safest and most promising chemical alternatives. Does anyone know more about the background of why APHIS wants to do this? Chris Beytes Managing editor GrowerTalks magazine From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri May 19 07:22:02 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 HAA11199; Fri, 19 May 1995 07:21:59 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id KAA01670; Fri, 19 May 1995 10:21:53 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id KAA19613; Fri, 19 May 1995 10:22:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 10:19:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Now biologicals are a threat? To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <950519091802_124269727@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Fools rush in . . . . I don't consider myself an EXTREME environmentalist (maybe I'm the last to know) and I know nothing about the proposed APHIS regulation except what you reported, but I do believe there should be some oversight connected with introducing biological species into areas where they are not indigenous. Some of this country's worst pests are species introduced to the U.S. accidentally or intentionally. Some "beneficials" may be host-specific, but I cannot believe that all are. No one thought that the kudzu vine would take over Southeastern U.S. or that gypsy moths would be such a huge problem in the Northeast. One thing we did learn from those situations is that once a species is loose in a friendly environment, eradication is nearly impossible. Maybe a little caution up-front is not such a bad idea. Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Fri May 19 08:05:03 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 IAA11843 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 08:05:01 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA03344; Fri, 19 May 1995 11:04:29 -0400 Date: 19 May 95 11:00:17 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: double notification Message-ID: <950519150017_73507.555_HHB100-1@CompuServe.COM> Adolfo MarvinGallo asked: >??Are all these field workers who arrive at a field, >or a dozen fields, within one-quarter of a mile of >your averaged-size-12-acre-field that is treated >with a dual-notice pesticide, employed by the >owner/operator of the treated field?? If not, they >don't require notification by the owner/operator of >the treated field, ?RIGHT? But they are employed by the owner/operator of the treated field. The property operator is a "worker employer" because he or she contracts with labor contractors and others for the services of the workers. Our average ranch is just about one quarter mile across. All these ranches are adjoining each other on the valley floor. The double-notification field may be on the north side of the ranch and the crew needing written and oral warning may be on the south side one quarter of a mile away, on the same property. To the north of the double-notification field, across a field road, there may be a crew on the next ranch. Nobody has to tell them anything. Does that make sense? When Roy says, "Have we lost sight of the forest for the trees?" and "are we mitigating real risks to fieldworkers?" I would answer YES and NO in this case. The field posting is quite sufficient. The workers being informed of all the double-notification fields, 1) will not be able to remember the information, 2) probably have no valid location reference, 3) will usually stay in the immediate area of the worksite until they leave for the next field (where they may hear a new litany of incomprehensible warnings and 4) don't much care. Regarding reading labels, I recently heard of a case in a neighboring county where an 84 year old apple grower was having problems reading the labels. I suggested "big-print" labels; just blow them up on a copy machine from the specimen label. Given the average age of the U.S farmer, perhaps this should be given serious consideration. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From 73507.555@compuserve.com Fri May 19 08:05:04 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 IAA11844 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 08:05:01 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA03348; Fri, 19 May 1995 11:04:29 -0400 Date: 19 May 95 11:01:12 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Irrigation exception Message-ID: <950519150112_73507.555_HHB100-2@CompuServe.COM> The proposed exception is rendered nearly useless by the added condition that the irrigation task must not have been foreseen. How often is that the case? Does anyone appreciate the difference between "could not have been foreseen" and "was not foreseen?" Must enforcement personnel decide what the grower could have foreseen? Well, enforcement was never the strong suit of WPS anyway. One of the main reasons an exception is needed in my area is to perform routine irrigation after the application of a soil-applied herbicide at planting. If the herbicide cannot be incorporated and activated by irrigation the treated soil is going to blow away with the regular and strong afternoon northwest wind and contaminate adjacent crops and be degraded by the sun. The planting will also suffer for not receiving prompt irrigation. The strange thing is that this blunder may be countermanded by an equally ridiculous decision by U.S. EPA that if you walk in the furrows when the herbicide is applied to the bed tops you are engaged in a non-contact activity and entry is not restricted. I know that a person in a cubicle thought all this up. >An important change somehow took place between the proposed >irrigation exception and the final exception...a condition for early >entry by irrigation workers has changed from "The tasks could not be >delayed until after expiration of the restricted-entry interval..." >to "The need for the task could not have been foreseen and cannot be >delayed until after the expiration of the REI" - see statements from >proposed and final exceptions below. The important change is that >not only must it not be possible to DELAY the irrigation task, but >now the irrigation task must ALSO not have been FORESEEN. This >change seems to me to make the irrigation exception unworkable for >most of agriculture - while the final exception accommodates the >unforeseen availability of water, say in an irrigation ditch, the >exception does nothing to accommodate irrigation activities which >must take place, albeit foreseen, during the REI. ****************************************************************** foresee, v.i. to exercise foresight. foresight, n 1) a foreseeing; the power to foresee. 2) a looking forward. 3) thoughtful regard or provision for the future; prudent forethought. -Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From rss2987@acs.tamu.edu Fri May 19 09:33:23 1995 Received: from mail.tamu.edu (MAIL.TAMU.EDU [128.194.103.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA13920 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 09:33:21 -0700 Received: from [128.194.212.5] (profharry.tamu.edu [128.194.212.5]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id LAA05574 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 11:33:18 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 11:33:48 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: rss2987@acs.tamu.edu (Steve Stauffer) Subject: Re: Now biologicals are a threat? >A sidenote to WPS: > >First EPA gave us WPS, then APHIS changed Quarantine 37, now the feds are at >it again. Has anyone heard that APHIS has proposed regulations ('Introduction >of non-indigenous organisms', published in the January Federal Register) that >would make beneficial predator and parasitic insects "indirect plant pests," >and put their production, distribution and use under APHIS control. This >issue has gone unnoticed, until TAMU prof Kevin Heinz brought it to our >attention. He says that right now APHIS has no authority over insects that >don't feed directly on plants. Some groups (EXTREME environmentalists, I >assume) worry that non-indiginous insects used for biological control could >attack non-target pests or plants. Kevin says there's little or no evidence >to support that fear. The cost for testing and registering biologicals could >put the fledgling biological controls industry out of business. Especially if >costs wind up being similar to what chemical companies pay to test and >register new chemicals, $20 to $40 million. > >At a public hearing in California in March, reps of the biologicals industry, >along with entomologists and large agribusinesses such as Dole and >Campbell's, which depend so heavily on predators that they have their own >insectories, argued against APHIS's proposal. Will they listen? Past >performance suggests otherwise. > >I find it absurd that the govt. has worked so hard to protect workers by >restricting chemical use, yet at the same time may seriously reduce or >eliminate the use of one of the safest and most promising chemical >alternatives. Does anyone know more about the background of why APHIS wants >to do this? > >Chris Beytes >Managing editor >GrowerTalks magazine There is a list called BCREGS-L devoted to the topic. BCREGS-L concerns the proposed rule which will regulate the application of biological control in the United States (7 CFR 335 Plant Pests: Introduction of Nonindigenous Organisms: Proposed Rule). To join, send e-mail to LISTSERV@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU with a blank subject line and body text consisting of SUBSCRIBE BCREGS-L JANE DOE where Jane Doe is your real name. The list is maintained by Tim Kring (tkring@comp.uark.edu) of the University of Arkansas. The server contains archived material from the 4 public hearings held, and comments from dozens of researchers and industry personnel. _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ Steve Stauffer, Research Assistant (409)847-8967 (voice) Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University (409)845-7977 (fax) College Station, TX 77843-2475 rss2987@acs.tamu.edu _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ From Mac82nd@aol.com Fri May 19 11:14:44 1995 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA16884 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 11:14:42 -0700 From: Mac82nd@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA238737087; Fri, 19 May 1995 14:11:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:11:27 -0400 Message-Id: <950519141017_124574502@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Now biologicals are a threat? Being a fruit grower and editor of a paper for a fruit and vegetable paper I am appaled by the insane regulations and public fear over our food production system - the safest and most productive in the world. How can averyone scream for no chemicals and then when alternatives come up they scream again about the safety of the alternatives - yet they want no chemicals now. Of course everyone wants "organic" food, but this is a scam too. There are chemicals used in organic systems - they just aren't synthetic. But is a synthetic pyrethroid safer than a natural pyrethroid? The organic people have a great marketing ploy going. So where does this leave us? Slow change is the only answer. Just because a plane crashes doesn't mean we should ground them all until something safer is designed. Of course tobbaco kills 400,000 people a year and no one is yelling about banning that. Why???? Matt McCallum Assistan Publisher Great Lakes Publishing Co. From Mac82nd@aol.com Fri May 19 11:15:53 1995 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA16889 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 11:14:57 -0700 From: Mac82nd@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA251337264; Fri, 19 May 1995 14:14:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:14:24 -0400 Message-Id: <950519141423_124575306@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Now biologicals are a threat? Here's a lawsuit recently files against the organic industry. Organic Industry Faces Ethics Questions A class action lawsuit filed in San Diego charges that two produce companies sold Mexican bananas tainted with fungicide. The suit draws attention to the ethics and practices of the largely self- regulated organic food industry, with critics asking whether the rapidly growing industry should be federally regulated. There are 17 private certification companies that inspect and verify that food is organic. Charges in the lawsuit suggest the time elapsing between inspections and investigations of complaints can allow nonorganic produce to be certified and sold. A spokesperson for the industry hopes the National Organic Program, a labeling law being developed by USDA, won't hinder timely response to consumer complaints. A source at USDA says it's unclear when the federal program to establish a single national standard for organic food will be set up. From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Fri May 19 12:07:28 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 MAA18842 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 12:07:11 -0700 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 15; Fri, 19 May 1995 15:07:00 +500 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 15:07:00 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <00990982.A7DCE340.15@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Non WPS postings I know that Amy Brown was criticized for speaking up earlier, but please folks can we keep this forum to WPS. There are so many topics we could discuss related to pesticides and there are many talk groups. I truly have to prioritize. When I am out of the office for one day I have a backlog of many messages on e-mail. I don't know if others feel this way. But there is just more info than I can deal with sometimes. Joanne Kick-Raack From LTrue@aol.com Fri May 19 15:31:43 1995 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA26068 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 15:31:38 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA257622665; Fri, 19 May 1995 18:31:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 18:31:05 -0400 Message-Id: <950519183104_124884042@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Irrigation exception This responds to Bob Roach's concern about the addition of "could not have been foreseen" to the conditions for the irrigation exception. As to its meaning, to me it pretty clearly means that a grower who has reason to know that irrigation will be needed during the REI of a planned application should change the timing or product of the application, or take other action, to prevent having the REI impede irrigation. While I am generally sympathetic to Bob's apparent concern that such criteria may seem to imply the presence of thought police to enforce them, I'm not convinced that in this case we are dealing with great mysteries about when crops are likely to need water. More generally, it should be noted that, as a historical matter, EPA never intended exceptions to the general WPS prohibition on entry with contact during the REI to be a matter of convenience. Rather, EPA recognized that changes to traditional practices by growers would sometimes be necessary to achieve the risk-reduction goals of WPS. This was made clear in the criteria for the exception for agricultural emergencies ("could not have been anticipated, and over which the agricultural employer has no control".) In addition, the criteria for requests for agency-approved exceptions (such as that for irrigation) require an explanation of why alternative practices are not viable, including rescheduling application or, in this case, irrigation. The Agency's action is in keeping with that general approach, and I think it makes sense if we want to avoid the routine presence of workers in treated fields during REI's. I have been involved in a number of discussions with state and grower representatives about the problem of irrigation. In all of them, I have asked for specific examples. Many of those suggested, upon closer examination, could be managed around through scheduling of application or irrigation. Others could be performed under existing WPS exceptions. Of course, this was not true for all of the examples. By far the most convincing was the case of the unpredictable and fleeting opportunity for use of water. I have been told that this does happen -- water distribution authorities may notify a grower that water will be available to them only during a period earlier than that originally scheduled. If the changed window of availability falls within an REI applicable to a crop that would suffer significant losses if the grower awaited the next window, there is a problem. While it could be argued that this could fall under the agricultural emergency exception, the test for "unforseeability" in the irrigation exception the Agency granted seems to deal with such cases admirably well. If, on the other hand, the grower schedules an irrigation crew to water a field Tuesday, and sprays Monday with a product with a 48-hr REI, it is less clear that those facts alone indicate that any exception should apply. In short, the criterion Bob objects to is consistent with the Agency's original intent in WPS -- that early entry not be routine and that exceptions be limited to those circumstances that are both important and which cannot be managed-around. Finally, please note that Bob's example of the watering-in of certain pesticides has been addressed by EPA's Interpretive Guidance Q&A 9.11. In short, it says that, when the label requires or advises watering-in, that task is regarded as part of application and may be performed by those trained and otherwise protected as handlers. This should help with at least many of the cases Bob discussed. Lou True From REW@age2.age.uiuc.edu Mon May 22 06:19:41 1995 Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA27033 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 06:19:38 -0700 Received: from sugar.age.uiuc.edu (sugar.age.uiuc.edu [128.174.141.26]) by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA15640 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 08:19:36 -0500 Received: from AGE-NEWAGE/TEMPQ by sugar.age.uiuc.edu (Mercury 1.21); 22 May 95 08:19:36 GMT+6 Received: from TEMPQ by AGE-NEWAGE (Mercury 1.21); 22 May 95 08:19:08 GMT+6 From: "Robert Wolf" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 08:19:03 CST Subject: Re: Non WPS postings Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.0-WB3) Message-ID: <18ECB455A25@sugar.age.uiuc.edu> Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 15:07:00 +500 Reply-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: kickraack@AGVAX2.AG.OHIO-STATE.EDU To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Non WPS postings I know that Amy Brown was criticized for speaking up earlier, but please folks can we keep this forum to WPS. There are so many topics we could discuss related to pesticides and there are many talk groups. I truly have to prioritize. When I am out of the office for one day I have a backlog of many messages on e-mail. I don't know if others feel this way. But there is just more info than I can deal with sometimes. Joanne Kick-Raack Good point Joanne!! I echoed the same concern earlier in the winter. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert E. Wolf, Extension Specialist Agriculutral Engineering, Pesticide Applicator Training, University of Illinois, Department of Agricultural Engineering, 360-Q AESB, 1304 W. Pennsylvania Ave. , Urbana, IL 61801 Phone: (217) 333-9418, FAX: (217) 244-0323 Email: rew@age2.age.uiuc.edu; cellular: (217)493-1184 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon May 22 07:40:00 1995 Received: from DialupEudora (eudora@are.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.175.17]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA27672 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 07:39:53 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 07:40:03 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard Rosenberg) Subject: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability Terry, Carole, Bob, Lou, and Others, That new criterion, "could not have been foreseen", in the published exceptions for irrigation _and_ for limited contact activities, had also caught my eye. After stewing awhile, I decided that the term could well have been unintentionally left in the final versions of these notices. Perhaps we will get a clarification from EPA. Meanwhile, here's how I figure. The unforeseeability concept shows up in only a couple of the tea leaf clusters that tell of the irrigation and limited contact revisions, and its presence is rather faint compared to other key conditions on these administrative exceptions. In Judy Smith's 4/27/95 posts (describing each of the five actions on the 1/11/95 proposals), "tasks that could not be foreseen" is mentioned once in the SUMMARY OF FINAL ACTION sections of both the irrigation and limited contact announcements. And in the published Fed. Reg. notices, the term "need for the task could not have been foreseen" appears but once, all the way down in Sections IV (Terms of the Exception) of the irrigation notice and the similarly titled Section V of the limited contact notice. One more possible reference to foreseeability is in Section III (Summary of Major Issues) of the irrigation notice, where it is linked to potential for significant economic loss: "By limiting the exception in this manner, EPA intends to prevent use of the exception for routine irrigation activities." Are all routine activities to be considered foreseeable? To my reading, the exception conditions that are emphasized in the published notices are: (1) necessity of task, (2) potential for significant economic loss if task is delayed, (3) minimal contact with treated surfaces, and (4) entry limit of 8 hours daily. Sections I (Background), II (EPA's Exception Decision), and III (Summary of Major Issues) of the notices include some careful discussion about risks and benefits of the exceptions--balancing consideration of potential worker exposure with potential economic loss. They have plenty about time-sensitivity of tasks but nothing about unforeseeability. The EPA press release of 4/27/95 that I posted contains no mention of an unforseeability criterion. Its brief summaries of the actions on irrigation and limited contact activities stress worker protections provided by PPE, the limited contact condition, and the 8-hour entry maximum. And in a 4-page news release of 4/29/95, NASDA discussed its likes (mostly) and dislikes about how the five actions were coming out. Sections describing the irrigation and limited contact exceptions laud EPA for recognizing the dynamics of production agriculture and providing farmers with needed flexibility. The release highlights--and includes EPA's definition of--the "task cannot be delayed" condition. It does not mention task unforeseeability at all, however, possibly because the EPA notices do not define such a new criterion, but also possibly because NASDA was unaware of the addition deep in the text of the notices. I doubt that NASDA would have characterized these two revisions so favorably if it had seen the new language to mean what we have been assuming in forum discussion. Howard Rosenberg From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon May 22 08:36:33 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 IAA28795 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 08:36:31 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA25714; Mon, 22 May 1995 11:35:59 -0400 Date: 22 May 95 11:34:36 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Irrigation Exception Message-ID: <950522153436_73507.555_HHB76-1@CompuServe.COM> I have had another look at the proposed exception and it does not say anything about the need for the irrigation task not being foreseeable. It does hint that something like that might come about under "Applicability of Exceptions." The final rule is strangely obtuse about those ten words they slipped in, "The need for the task could not have been foreseen..." Under the part, "Need for the Exception," they say, "Comments from nurseries and greenhouses stated that frequently they need to water more than once a day." and then they go on to say, "EPA agrees with these comments and is persuaded that it is necessary to allow early entry during the REI to perform irrigation activities." Then in the final exception they blow the nurseries off. Under "Terms of the Exception" it says, "The terms of the exception are essentially the same as those proposed in the Federal REgister of January 11, 1995, with two minor differences; the final exception is not limited to two years and the ten posting requirements have been changed to three notification requirements." The terms are obviously quite different. The original terms did not require that the need for the task could not have been foreseen. That addition eliminates nearly all of the situations for which the states of California and Hawaii had been requesting the exception. I wonder how NASDA is taking this. Thanks, Lou, for the great idea; we can just call them handlers! I looked at the Kerb label. This is the herbicide applied to nearly all lettuce fields here at planting and one of the major irrigation tasks of concern. If the irrigators go in as handlers, they do not even need to wait four hours. They must wear long-sleeved shirt and long pants, waterproof gloves and shoes plus socks. If the go in as early entry workers they must wear coveralls, waterproof gloves and waterproof boots. The handlers need less PPE than the early entry workers and they can step on the beds! Rubber boots are de rigueur anyway for irrigation work. P.S. - Regarding those messages that are not exactly on subject, they have not been so many. If it begins to take over the forum, lets do something but the occasional message off subject is OK with me. If you are so busy that watching a message scroll across your screen is a major bother, you need to consider what is putting such demands on your time. One keystroke and it is gone. The APHIS question is extremely important. It is all related in some way, I think. ****************************************************************** foresee, v.i. to exercise foresight. foresight, n 1) a foreseeing; the power to foresee. 2) a looking forward. 3) thoughtful regard or provision for the future; prudent forethought. -Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From LTrue@aol.com Mon May 22 09:40:22 1995 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA00408 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 09:40:20 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA246670789; Mon, 22 May 1995 12:39:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 12:39:49 -0400 Message-Id: <950522123943_127734020@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability This responds to Howard Rosenberg's discussion of the criterion in the irrigation and limited-contact exceptions. I am not privy to what, exactly, EPA had in mind in writing the terms of those exceptions as they did. However, they did acknowledge receiving comments to the effect that EPA should ensure that any permitted early-entry activities were really necessary. In keeping with that, it seems to me that the criterion is most plainly viewed as part of the idea of need -- inserting the important proviso that it refers, not just to the need for the early-entry activity, but also to the need to apply the pesticide chosen (with its REI) and the timing of that application. In that context, the "could not have been foreseen" provision simply recognizes that both of these aspects of cultural practice, pest control and post-application actions, are subject to management by the grower. This makes sense to me. I'd be reluctant to rely instead on what EPA chose to emphasize in (usually hurriedly prepared) press summaries, much less on speculation about what NASDA may or may not have noticed. I certainly see no basis for the suggestion that the provision, a change from the proposals, was unintentional. Lou True From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Mon May 22 14:14:02 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 OAA09890 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 14:13:56 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 22 May 1995 14:14:16 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 13:46:29 -0700 To: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu, wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Non WPS postings -Reply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from localhost (server@localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA18936; Fri, 19 May 1995 12:08:17 -0700 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 MAA18842 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 12:07:11 -0700 Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 15; Fri, 19 May 1995 15:07:00 +500 Reply-To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Sender: owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN I know that Amy Brown was criticized for speaking up earlier, but please folks can we keep this forum to WPS. There are so many topics we could discuss related to pesticides and there are many talk groups. I truly have to prioritize. When I am out of the office for one day I have a backlog of many messages on e-mail. I don't know if others feel this way. But there is just more info than I can deal with sometimes. Joanne Kick-Raack <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Ditto Ditto I certainly do agree Sometimes there's so much NoN-WPS crap Here I cannot see The trees for the forest And I wonder if there's any real work getting done. Adolfo R. MarvinGallo "Some people hate BabyRuths, and would rather eat a Snickers-on-a-toad." From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Mon May 22 14:38:15 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 OAA10804 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 14:38:05 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 22 May 1995 14:38:33 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 14:18:37 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: Irrigation Exception -Reply Regarding the use of the WPS forum. I disagree with you Bob. I want this forum for it's intended purpose, WPS. I love to cruise it because it contains ideas and statements that are generated by a large, diverse audience. I especially love to read the entries that I disagree with, or that deal with WPS issues that I knew nothing about, because they cause me to think and learn; ABOUT THE WPS. I've even changed my mind about certain issues; I've even found myself agreeing with you; sometimes. Sure, there has been a lot of other neat information presented on the forum. But I prefer that they be put on other media and that this forum be used for WPS only. I love that ideas and information be exchanged, but NON-WPS stuff should be placed and found elsewhere. There's no lacking of print and electronic media that other NON-WPS stuff can be placed and found on. That was a quarter's worth of my thoughts and you can keep the change. Adolfo R. MarvinGallo, CDPR "Some people hate BabyRuths, and would rather eat a Snickers-on-a-toad." From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Tue May 23 14:50:21 1995 Received: from ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us [164.107.107.13]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA07638 for ; Tue, 23 May 1995 14:50:18 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id RAA02289; Tue, 23 May 1995 17:50:09 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id RAA06046; Tue, 23 May 1995 17:50:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 17:22:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Scope Questions To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <950522123943_127734020@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Someone asked: "If a chemical company representative is applying pesticides on a research field plot that the farmer planted, is the chemical company representative and his/her employees covered by the WPS? The farmer is not paying the chemical company representative but the chemical company representative may be paying the farmer. What if the chemical company representative planted the crop?" I believe that regardless of who planted the crop or who owns the plot, the chemical company representative and his/her employees who are handling (mixing, loading, applying etc) the pesticide for use on the plot are covered by the WPS PROVIDED the pesticide is registered. The WPS applies when any pesticide is handled for use in the commercial or research production of agricultural plants on an agricultural establishment. Research uses of unregistered pesticides are not included in the WPS scope. I believe that the owner of the plot (ag establishment) need not be compensating a commercial pesticide handling establishment for the commercial handlers to be covered by the WPS. The definition of a commercial pesticide handling establishment in the WPS is: "any establishment, other than an agricultural establishment, that: (1) employs any person, including a self-employed person, to apply on an agricultural establishment, pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants. . ." (the rest of the definition involves crop advisors). Therefore, it would appear that the chemical company representative is covered, because he/she is employed by an establishment to handle pesticides for use on an agricultural establishment. I do not believe the WPS specifies a particular relationship must exist between the agricultural establishment and the commercial pesticide handling establishment in order for the commercial handlers to be covered by the WPS. -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Wed May 24 04:57:33 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA17832 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 04:57:31 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id HAA19478; Wed, 24 May 1995 07:52:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 07:52:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199505241152.HAA19478@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: afgfish@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Gary Fish) Subject: Re: Scope Questions I also agree with this interpretation and I believe it holds true for Chemical company reps as crop advisors that need to be trained by their comapanies. These companies are commercial pesticide handling establishments (handler meaning crop advisor as well as mixer, loader, etc.) I still don't think any remuneration need happen. > >Someone asked: > >"If a chemical company representative is applying pesticides on a research >field plot that the farmer planted, is the chemical company representative >and his/her employees covered by the WPS? The farmer is not paying the >chemical company representative but the chemical company representative >may be paying the farmer. > >What if the chemical company representative planted the crop?" > >I believe that regardless of who planted the crop or who owns the plot, >the chemical company representative and his/her employees who are handling >(mixing, loading, applying etc) the pesticide for use on the plot are >covered by the WPS PROVIDED the pesticide is registered. The WPS applies when >any pesticide is handled for use in the commercial or research production >of agricultural plants on an agricultural establishment. Research uses of >unregistered pesticides are not included in the WPS scope. > >I believe that the owner of the plot (ag establishment) need not be >compensating a commercial pesticide handling establishment for the >commercial handlers to be covered by the WPS. The definition of a >commercial pesticide handling establishment in the WPS is: "any >establishment, other than an agricultural establishment, that: (1) >employs any person, including a self-employed person, to apply on an >agricultural establishment, pesticides used in the production of >agricultural plants. . ." (the rest of the definition involves crop advisors). >Therefore, it would appear that the chemical company representative is >covered, because he/she is employed by an establishment to handle >pesticides for use on an agricultural establishment. > >I do not believe the WPS specifies a particular relationship must exist >between the agricultural establishment and the commercial pesticide >handling establishment in order for the commercial handlers to be covered >by the WPS. > > -- > >Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact >5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 > > > From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed May 24 06:04:46 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 GAA18249 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 06:04:44 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id JAA23581; Wed, 24 May 1995 09:03:36 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA801331160; Wed, 24 May 95 08:55:25 EST Date: Wed, 24 May 95 08:55:25 EST Message-Id: <9504248013.AA801331160@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Irrigation Exception Bob: This distinction may or may not be apparent to all FORUM readers. So I'll add a couple of precautionary statements concerning irrigation. Be certain that the pesticide label calls for "watering in" the product as part of the application practice. In this case, irrigation personnel are "handlers". With appropriate PPE, they may enter and perform handling activities (i.e., lay/move pipe, etc.) until the end of treatment. If "watering in" is not part of the application process, irrigation personnel are NOT handlers. Judy Smith EPA/Washington From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Wed May 24 10:17:32 1995 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA23702 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 10:17:30 -0700 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.10/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id KAA26903 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 10:17:25 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 10:17:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199505241717.KAA26903@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability PLEASE -- someone from EPA explain WHY the statement ** IV. Terms of the Exception. #1. The need for the task **could not have been foreseen** AND cannot be delayed until after the expiration of the REI. A task that cannot be delayed is one that, if not performed before the REI expires, would cause significant economic loss, and there are no alternative practices which would prevent significant loss. ** WHY< WHY< WHY< was *the task could not have been forseen* placed in the terms of the exception? That makes this regulation totally restrictive and inflexible. When a commodity requires daily irrigation during the heat of the summer, sometimes for more than a month straight, the irrigation task is ALWAYS forseen. There is NO way to delay the irrigation. If the plants do not get water daily, they will perish from the heat. This little statement, buried in the depths of the regulation and not eluded to anyplace earlier in the Federal Register notice OPP250098A; FRL-4950-5 is NOT flexible to irrigation tasks that are clearly known. The first line of Part V. Reevaluation of Irrigation Exception states "The Agency is adopting this exception in order to provide the flexibility to the agriculture sector to avoid significant economic losses while still providing ag. workers protection under the WPS." ----Please clarify the flexibility put forward due to the above stated problem or at least explain the intent of it. In reading the regulation I clearly see one intent, but the above statement clearly does not allow that intent to those irrigating daily. -- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed May 24 10:56:57 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 KAA25379 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 10:56:52 -0700 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id NAA01189; Wed, 24 May 1995 13:55:24 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA801348664; Wed, 24 May 95 13:46:53 EST Date: Wed, 24 May 95 13:46:53 EST Message-Id: <9504248013.AA801348664@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re[2]: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability Carol: I've forwarded your question to the contact for the exception. I'll post a response as soon as it comes back to me. Judy Smith/EPA From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability PLEASE -- someone from EPA explain WHY the statement ** IV. Terms of the Exception. #1. The need for the task **could not have been foreseen** AND cannot be delayed until after the expiration of the REI. A task that cannot be delayed is one that, if not performed before the REI expires, would cause significant economic loss, and there are no alternative practices which would prevent significant loss. ** WHY< WHY< WHY< was *the task could not have been forseen* placed in the terms of the exception? That makes this regulation totally restrictive and inflexible. When a commodity requires daily irrigation during the heat of the summer, sometimes for more than a month straight, the irrigation task is ALWAYS forseen. There is NO way to delay the irrigation. If the plants do not get water daily, they will perish from the heat. This little statement, buried in the depths of the regulation and not eluded to anyplace earlier in the Federal Register notice OPP250098A; FRL-4950-5 is NOT flexible to irrigation tasks that are clearly known. The first line of Part V. Reevaluation of Irrigation Exception states "The Agency is adopting this exception in order to provide the flexibility to the agriculture sector to avoid significant economic losses while still providing ag. workers protection under the WPS." ----Please clarify the flexibility put forward due to the above stated problem or at least explain the intent of it. In reading the regulation I clearly see one intent, but the above statement clearly does not allow that intent to those irrigating daily. -- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From LTrue@aol.com Wed May 24 19:14:49 1995 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA08179 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 19:14:46 -0700 From: LTrue@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA162628050; Wed, 24 May 1995 22:14:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 22:14:10 -0400 Message-Id: <950524221409_11352833@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Irrigation Exception I would like to try to clarify one point in Judy Smith's recent posting. Her use of the phrase, "until the end of treatment" could perhaps be read to say that watering-in by handlers may be permitted only while pesticide is still being distributed. However, we should note that Interpretive Guidance Q&A 5.12.1 clearly lists watering-in by a handler (referring to Q&A 9.11) as one of the conditions under which "irrigation can take place during a" REI. Since REI is defined in WPS so as to start "after the end of a pesticide application," the Agency clearly intended that the watering-in, when it meets the other requirement of being required or advised by the labeling, can take place after initial pesticide distribution is complete. Also, Q&A 9.11 itself, which Judy was discussing, says "watering-in that is required or advised by the label may be performed AT ANY TIME by trained handlers." This too emphasizes that the Agency anticipated that the watering could take place at any time, including during the REI. Judy's basic point, I believe, was to emphasize the importance of label wording, since the Agency made the interpretation based on the conclusion that certain watering tasks associated with applications is essentially a soil incorporation step best regarded as an extension of the usual idea of application, and thus an appropriate handler task. Hope this helps. Lou True From dharper@biddeford.com Thu May 25 04:45:29 1995 Received: from river.biddeford.com (river.biddeford.com [204.120.68.6]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA12841 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 04:45:27 -0700 Received: from [199.244.145.32] (bidd17.biddeford.com [199.244.145.32]) by river.biddeford.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id HAA07807 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 07:44:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:44:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199505251144.HAA07807@river.biddeford.com> X-Sender: dharper@river.biddeford.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: dharper@biddeford.com (Don Harper) Subject: Re: unsubscribe-wps > I would like to try to clarify one point in Judy Smith's recent posting. > Her use of the phrase, "until the end of treatment" could perhaps be read to >say that watering-in by handlers may be permitted only while pesticide is >still being distributed. However, we should note that Interpretive Guidance >Q&A 5.12.1 clearly lists watering-in by a handler (referring to Q&A 9.11) as >one of the conditions under which "irrigation can take place during a" REI. > Since REI is defined in WPS so as to start "after the end of a pesticide >application," the Agency clearly intended that the watering-in, when it meets >the other requirement of being required or advised by the labeling, can take >place after initial pesticide distribution is complete. Also, Q&A 9.11 >itself, which Judy was discussing, says "watering-in that is required or >advised by the label may be performed AT ANY TIME by trained handlers." This >too emphasizes that the Agency anticipated that the watering could take place >at any time, including during the REI. Judy's basic point, I believe, was to >emphasize the importance of label wording, since the Agency made the >interpretation based on the conclusion that certain watering tasks associated >with applications is essentially a soil incorporation step best regarded as >an extension of the usual idea of application, and thus an appropriate >handler task. Hope this helps. > >Lou True From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Thu May 25 04:53:51 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 EAA12976 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 04:53:50 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id HAA19632; Thu, 25 May 1995 07:53:41 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id HAA09969; Thu, 25 May 1995 07:54:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:36:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <199505241717.KAA26903@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII While we are waiting for EPA's rationale for the "unforeseen" statement (I suspect Lou True's explanation a few days ago captures EPA's rationale), I have a few questions in return. Which crop- or use-situations require irrigation workers to enter a treated area and contact treated surfaces for more than 1 hour per day? What takes so long? Many irrigation tasks do not require contact with the treated surface at all. Which crop- or use-situations require watering daily and require lengthy contact with the treated surface? While the WPS was being developed and even as recently as the debate over the irrigation exception, I have yet to learn about any agricultural situations (except possibly when the availability of the irrigation water is not within the grower's control) where the existing WPS exception (1 hour per worker per day) was inadequate. Are there other such situations or is this more an inconvenience and scheduling problem for growers? On Wed, 24 May 1995, Carol A. Ramsay wrote: > PLEASE -- someone from EPA explain WHY the statement > ** > IV. Terms of the Exception. > #1. The need for the task **could not have been foreseen** AND cannot be > delayed until after the expiration of the REI. A task that cannot be > delayed is one that, if not performed before the REI expires, would cause > significant economic loss, and there are no alternative practices which > would prevent significant loss. > ** > > WHY< WHY< WHY< was *the task could not have been forseen* placed in the > terms of the exception? That makes this regulation totally restrictive and > inflexible. When a commodity requires daily irrigation during the heat of > the summer, sometimes for more than a month straight, the irrigation task > is ALWAYS forseen. There is NO way to delay the irrigation. If the plants > do not get water daily, they will perish from the heat. > > -- > Carol A. Ramsay > WSU Pesticide Education > 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 > phone: 509-335-9222 > fax:335-1009 > > -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From ramsay@mail.wsu.edu Thu May 25 11:54:39 1995 Received: from cheetah.it.wsu.edu (cheetah.it.wsu.edu [134.121.10.31]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA22200 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 11:54:35 -0700 Received: from [134.121.82.12] (ramsay.ent.wsu.edu [134.121.82.12]) by cheetah.it.wsu.edu (8.6.10/WSUit-1.1) with SMTP id LAA13164 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 11:54:25 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:54:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199505251854.LAA13164@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ramsay@mail.wsu.edu (Carol A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability >From Sally McDonald: I have yet to learn about >any agricultural situations (except possibly when the availability >of the irrigation water is not within the grower's control) where the >existing WPS exception (1 hour per worker per day) was inadequate. Are >there other such situations or is this more an inconvenience and >scheduling problem for growers? This is one situation that I am aware of that both the pest control task and the irrigation task are necessary and forseen. In production of 6,000 acres of irrigated trees, daily irrigation occurs in all ages of trees in production. In order to maintain the irrigation equipment and to ensure it functions properly, herbicides are applied (spot treatments) at certain "flush" points along the irrigation lines to routinely inspect water flow. The people that inspect these locations are checking many locations which could account for more than one hour time within the REI. This "maintenance" herbicide application (due to the restriction of time within the REI) prevents the irrigation managers from doing critical irrigation maintenance tasks. -- Carol A. Ramsay WSU Pesticide Education 364 FSHN, Pullman, WA 99164-6382 phone: 509-335-9222 fax:335-1009 From NedONeill@aol.com Thu May 25 13:08:58 1995 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA24213 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 13:08:53 -0700 From: NedONeill@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA141792342; Thu, 25 May 1995 16:05:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 16:05:42 -0400 Message-Id: <950525160541_12186353@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability From: Ned O'Neill Apple orchards need to be mowed which takes much more than one hour and with some chemicals having 72+ hour Rei that need to be sprayed weekly you do not have enough time left to mow even though it can be foreseen. From 73507.555@compuserve.com Fri May 26 08:00:49 1995 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA11475 for ; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:00:45 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA17223; Fri, 26 May 1995 11:00:13 -0400 Date: 26 May 95 10:55:12 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Pesticide Issues Forums Message-ID: <950526145511_73507.555_HHB86-1@CompuServe.COM> Some of those objecting to non-WPS messges on the forum suggested that they be posted in other places that deal with pesticide issues. I would like to know what these are. I am waiting for the DPR bulletin board. Any news on that, Adolfo? >I love that ideas and information be exchanged, but >NON-WPS stuff should be placed and found >elsewhere. There's no lacking of print and >electronic media that other NON-WPS stuff can be >placed and found on. ****************************************************************** "Men hate BabyRuths. They would rather eat a toad." - Robin Williams Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ****************************************************************** From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri May 26 08:30:36 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 IAA12120 for ; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:30:34 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:31:09 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 08:26:28 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: Pesticide Issues Forums -Reply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from localhost (server@localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA11559; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:01:36 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA11475 for ; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:00:45 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA17223; Fri, 26 May 1995 11:00:13 -0400 Reply-To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Sender: owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN Some of those objecting to non-WPS messges on the forum suggested that they be posted in other places that deal with pesticide issues. I would like to know what these are. I am waiting for the DPR bulletin board. Any news on that, Adolfo? >I love that ideas and information be exchanged, but >NON-WPS stuff should be placed and found >elsewhere. There's no lacking of print and >electronic media that other NON-WPS stuff can be >placed and found on. ********************************************************** ******** "Men hate BabyRuths. They would rather eat a toad." - Robin Williams Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ********************************************************** ******** <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Hey Bob, You're question is NON-WPS stuff. Call DPR/me if you want. Adolfo "Some people hate BabyRuths, and would rather eat a Snickers-on-a-toad."-Adolfo R. MarvinGallo Adolfo R. MarvinGallo-CDPR-916.445.3895 From SJBAIRD@aol.com Fri May 26 08:37:55 1995 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA12527 for ; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:37:53 -0700 From: SJBAIRD@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA149782481; Fri, 26 May 1995 11:34:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 11:34:41 -0400 Message-Id: <950526113440_13265927@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Crop Advisor Exemption Being new to the WPS Forum, I have several questions about the recently published change to the WPS regarding Crop Advisors. I feel certain that I have misinterpreted the new exemption. 1. Is it true that as long as crop-advisor employers have received training equal to that of WPS pesticide handler training, that during a restricted-entry interval employers need not comply with any provisions of WPS for themselves OR their employees, other than WPS handler training for the employees and certain site-specific information given to employees? 2. Is it true that even if the employers decides that PPE or decontamination water is needed by the employees for the entry into the treated area, the crop-advisor employers need not provide, clean, or maintain the PPE or provide the decontamination supplies? 3. Is is true that if the employers makes a mistake and an employee becomes ill or injured as a result of the entrance to the treated area that the crop-advisor employer need NOT make sure the employee has transportation to a medical facility and need NOT supply to the employee or to treating medical personnel any information about the pesticide or the situation that lead to the illness or injury? 4.. Is it true that for a one-year "grace" period any person without any training or education at all who wishes to name him or herself a crop advisor has the legal right to determine on the behalf of their employees what PPE or other protections are needed to enter areas that remain under an REI -- including unventilated greenhouses following fumigant treatments? 5. Is it true that crop advisor employers may choose to disregard labeling restrictions about entry into treated areas, even restrictions pertaining specifically to crop advisors? From 73414.252@compuserve.com Fri May 26 10:15:16 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 KAA15804 for ; Fri, 26 May 1995 10:15:13 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA09690; Fri, 26 May 1995 13:14:34 -0400 Date: 26 May 95 13:09:21 EDT From: Judith Houswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: reply to SJ Baird Crop Advisor Exemption Question Message-ID: <950526170920_73414.252_DHS44-1@CompuServe.COM> Unfortunately your interpretation of the crop advisor exemption is correct. Of the five new exemptions to the WPS, this is the one with great potential to harm people. The Agency is under the incredible belief that training and education permits an individual to determine when and how a field is safe to reenter. I worked at the Agency for many years and reviewed many reentry studies in which the pesticide residues on the treated crop were measured. The variability in pesticide residue levels is very large (CV > 1000%) This is not suprising considering the variability in environmental conditions. Look at California's experiences with Methomyl and how it degrades differently under different conditions. The idea that someone with a Ph.D. in entomology or 45 minutes of handler WPS training can now look at a field treated with a pesticide and determine how safe it is to enter and what to wear is beyond belief. Is there anyone out there who honestly feels that knowing that a field treated 24 hours ago with guthion or ethyl parathion they can determine if the field is safe to enter for scouting and what PPE should be worn? Question for crop advisors. Can you tell me which pesticides are developmental toxicants? Can you tell me which ones cause adverse male reproductive effects? Remember, all you have is label information and application specifics. Think about it the next time you make that educated decision on how and when to reenter the field to scout. Bluntly, the crop advisor exemption is EPA capitulation to political pressure with complete disregard to the public. Curt Lunchick From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri May 26 10:38:46 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.37] (gia3mac27.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.37]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA16872 for ; Fri, 26 May 1995 10:38:43 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 10:38:44 -0700 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: Re: Undelayability vs. Unforseeability I am relaying the following message that was, for technical reasons, originally ignored by the automated list processing software. Dana Keil, Mailing List Manager Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California at Berkeley ----------- relayed message follows ----------- Reply From: Curt Lunchick Mowing of the apple orchard, or the grass cover maintained in any orchard or grove when a tractor-drawn mower is used comes under the no contact exception in the WPS. This scenario was discussed during the development of the WPS. If the tree foliage was treated (as opposed to the grass cover maintained between the tree rows) the no contact exemption is more obvious than treatment to the grass cover itself when the exemption still is valid as long as the individual mowing is using a tractor.