From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Thu Sep 7 08:26:21 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 IAA15600 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 1995 08:26:19 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id LAA24532; Thu, 7 Sep 1995 11:20:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 11:20:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199509071520.LAA24532@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: Model Handout for Basic Pesticide Safety Information When the rule changing the WPS training requirements was finalized, EPA said they were working with USDA and the State to develop and distribute a model handout for this new basic pesticide safety information. Does anyone out there know where this is in development? How soon before it's available to the states? Is EPA going to mass produce this or should SLAs budget money to have them copied? From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Sep 7 15:13:25 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA29499 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:13:23 -0700 Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 07 Sep 1995 18:08:17 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 14:28:20 -0400 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Model Handout for Basic Pesticide Safety Information -Reply Earlier today, Tammy Gould inquired if the EPA is working with USDA in the drafting of a model handout to convey all the basic pesticide safety information as required for any untrained worker after January 1, 1996 who enters a area treated within the last 30 days. If you will recall from the Federal Register May 3, 1995 (pages 21945 and 21947), all ag. employers are required to assure that untrained workers receive basic safety information BEFORE they enter a previously treated area. This information may be conveyed by written materials, handouts, posters, oral communication, or otherwise. Agricultural employers can use the EPA handout, develop their own, or use other materials that contain the same information as required by the new amendment. Last August, the U.S. EPA at Headquarters has already begun composing such a safety handout, which is intended to be ultimately available in several different languages. We have already viewed an early draft of its content. I suspect that the final release of this new handout will still take a short time, while the Agency finishes the release of a few more proposed amendments, and early-entry petition, and clarifications. I do not know if there is an intent (or budget) to mass print and distribute this new document. I would not expect quantities being made available for all workers nationwide. Resources approved by Congress for the next fiscal year will probably determine the quantities printed. However, for your information, the Agency already has a previously issued document which meets the requirements for early safety information - The brochure entitled "Protect Yourself From Pesticides" (EPA #735-F-94-001), which has already been distributed to all States. Gemplers has stated that they will carry a large supply of this particular brochure for orders. Donald Baumgartner EPA Region 5 *************************************************** >>> Tammy Gould 9/7/95, 10:20am >>> When the rule changing the WPS training requirements was finalized, EPA said they were working with USDA and the State to develop and distribute a model handout for this new basic pesticide safety information. Does anyone out there know where this is in development? How soon before it's available to the states? Is EPA going to mass produce this or should SLAs budget money to have them copied? From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Fri Sep 8 07:56:53 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 HAA14114 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 07:56:46 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 08 Sep 1995 10:55:33 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 11:57:24 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Model Handout for Basic Pesticide Safety Information -Reply On 9/7/95 Donald Baumgartner wrote: <#735-F-94-001), which has already been distributed to all> Don- If employers utilize this brochure, how should they meet the requirement that they must be able to verify that workers were informed that "Further training will be provided within 5 days?" This is an additional information requirement established by the May 3, 1995 rule that was not in the "Protect Yourself From Pesticides" brochure. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 alfrench@usda.gov From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Sep 8 11:50:46 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA22907 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:50:43 -0700 Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 08 Sep 1995 14:48:34 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 14:45:41 -0400 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Model Handout for Basic Pesticide Safety Information -Reply -Reply Al, You are correct that the amendment requires that the following information be relayed to employees as well: "further training will be provided in 5 days (of entry into treated areas where pesticides have been applied in the last 30 days)", and that the brochure menioned previously does not contain that information because it was initially drafted for a different intent. I would hope that the new safety brochure in draft by the Agency does contain this statement. However, the burden of information provision lies again with the employer and it is his responsibility to fill any voids or omissions in training. Only those videos or other materials approved by the U.S. EPA specifically to satisfy training provisions have been scrutinized to insure that they satisfy all the pesticide safety points as used alone. Donald Baumgartner EPA Region 5 ************************************************************8 >>> Al French 9/8/95, 10:57am >>> On 9/7/95 Donald Baumgartner wrote: <#735-F-94-001), which has already been distributed to all> Don- If employers utilize this brochure, how should they meet the requirement that they must be able to verify that workers were informed that "Further training will be provided within 5 days?" This is an additional information requirement established by the May 3, 1995 rule that was not in the "Protect Yourself From Pesticides" brochure. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 alfrench@usda.gov From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Fri Sep 8 12:48:21 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 MAA25097 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:48:20 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id PAA24839; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 15:42:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 15:42:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199509081942.PAA24839@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: Verifying the Basic Information To Don and Al (and the rest of the WPS Forum): The training verification Al refers to (forgive me Al if I'm wrong) is that mentioned in Sec. 170.130 (3)(i). The last sentence of that section states, "... The agricultural employer must be able to verify compliance with this requirement." This is the only training verification expressly required by the WPS. Does EPA expect employers to document that this basic safety training was provided? I'm glad that growers have an available publication to use to relay that information. We were sent tons from our regional office. Is that brochure available on disk? Tammy Gould Maine Board of Pesticides Control From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Fri Sep 8 13:56:56 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 NAA28454 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 13:56:52 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 08 Sep 1995 16:55:48 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 17:44:50 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Verifying the Basic Information On 9/8/95 Tammy Gould asked: < < Yes, it appears that the requirements are more stringent for the basic training than for the full WPS training. The explanatory part of the 5/3/95 training rule states: "Employers must be able to verify that they have complied with this (basic training) requirement. EPA recommends a system which involves employee signature acknowledging receipt of the required information. Other verifiable means of showing compliance would be acceptable." Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 alfrench@usda.gov --------- < <"... The agricultural employer must be able to verify> < < < From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Sep 8 17:29:55 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.94] (gia5mac14.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.94]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA07273 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 17:29:51 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 17:30:28 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: no such nonsense in California >"Employers must be able to verify that they have complied >with this [basic training] requirement. But if employers make sure that workers have received the complete WPS pesticide safety training before they enter treated areas, they don't have to worry about either handing out a basic safety information sheet or verifying that they did so. Lo and behold, that's what we appear to be heading for in California. The draft regulations here provide for no "grey" period during which fieldworkers may be basically informed but not fully trained. If this feature remains in the final regs, workers will probably find it all the more valuable to possess one of those training verification cards. --Howard Rosenberg From SJButler@aol.com Sun Sep 10 13:19:42 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 NAA26273 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 1995 13:19:40 -0700 From: SJButler@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA04048 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Sun, 10 Sep 1995 16:19:09 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 16:19:09 -0400 Message-ID: <950910161908_95894676@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Model Handout for Basic P... Al & Don -- Bryan Little, AFBF Labor Government Relations Director and I visited several operations in Florida this week. They included citrus harvesting, caretaking, vegetables and greenhouse. As long as names and current records of training are maintained, along with all other posting and PPE requirements, the Florida Department of Ag inspectors have been taking the employers word as to meeting the 5 day rule. - Scottie Butler, General Counsel, Fla Farm Bureau Fed - From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed Sep 13 06:06:16 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 GAA06044 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 06:06:14 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id JAA00996; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 09:05:19 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id JAA17960; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 09:07:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 09:04:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Model Handout for Basic Pesticide Safety Information 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 have followed with interest the recent discussion on the Forum about the newly promulgated WPS requirement that employers to inform untrained workers about "basic pesticide safety information." Unless I am missing something, however, I am very confused by the apparently common assumption that a "handout" will meet the terms of the new requirement. The language of the new requirement is identical to the language in the 1992 WPS about training -- it must be given in a manner workers can understand. Since many agricultural workers cannot read at a level that would enable them to understand a handout, I believe that in many instances the "basic pesticide safety information" will have to be conveyed to workers orally. (The director of Harvard University's reading laboratory estimates that most (75%) seasonal agricultural workers would have difficulty obtaining information from printed materials in any language.) Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From alfrench@mailbox.econ.ag.gov Wed Sep 13 08:37:50 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 IAA07652 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 08:37:48 -0700 Received: from ECONSMTP-Message_Server by mailbox.econ.ag.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 11:36:42 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 12:38:21 -0400 From: Al French To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Model handout for basic pesticide safety training - Reply On 9/13/95 Sally McDonald said: < I imagine that many people assume EPA expects employers to use a handout. That assumption may stem from EPA's explanation (Fed. Reg. 60 @ 21945 (May 3, 1995)): "EPA will develop and distribute, ... a model handout that will contain the basic pesticide safety information to satisfy this (basic training) requirement. Agricultural employers can use this particular handout, develop their own, or use other materials that contain the basic pesticide safety information required by this rule." EPA recognizes the problem of communicating with illiterate workers; EPA regular training materials are presented in "picture-book" form. Presumably, the yet-to-be-developed basic information handout will be in a similar format. The rule makes it clear that the basic pesticide safety information may be provided orally. I would agree that if workers can not comprehend the picture-book, the safety information should be provided orally. However, the rule also requires employers to be able to verify compliance. Employers may believe that the use of training materials provides a paper trail that will assist them in meeting EPA's verification requirement. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 alfrench@usda.gov From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Fri Sep 15 05:25:09 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 FAA26612 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 05:25:07 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id IAA03127; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:24:10 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id IAA14579; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:26:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:13:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Model handout for basic pesticide safety training - 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 I don't find it at all odd that EPA has promised to develop and distribute a model handout that contains the basic safety information that must be conveyed to workers. The 1992 WPS requires oral or audiovisual training for workers, yet EPA's first training materials for workers was a written handbook. EPA's handout will (presumably) contain all the information WPS requires to be conveyed to workers, so employers will be assured of not accidentally leaving something out. However, the existence of the handout does not, in my opinion, imply that employers have met their responsibility by merely distributing it to untrained workers. During the development of WPS-related training materials, including both the worker training handbook and the WPS safety poster, EPA repeatedly found that the drawings alone were insufficient to adequately convey the desired information. Since the new WPS requirement explicitly requires that the information be conveyed in a manner each worker can understand and that the employer verify that the information has been given, a prudent employer should be very careful about relying on distributing a handout as the sole method of conveying the information. I believe that the majority of seasonal agricultural workers will need to have the information explained to them orally -- with the assistance of drawings. Sally On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Al French wrote: > I imagine that many people assume EPA expects > employers to use a handout. That assumption may stem > from EPA's explanation (Fed. Reg. 60 @ 21945 (May 3, > 1995)): > > "EPA will develop and distribute, ... a model handout that > will contain the basic pesticide safety information to satisfy > this (basic training) requirement. Agricultural employers can > use this particular handout, develop their own, or use other > materials that contain the basic pesticide safety information > required by this rule." > > EPA recognizes the problem of communicating with > illiterate workers; EPA regular training materials are > presented in "picture-book" form. Presumably, the > yet-to-be-developed basic information handout will be in a > similar format. > > > -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Fri Sep 15 14:53:05 1995 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (root@franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA11008 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 14:53:04 -0700 From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4) id OAA19041; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 14:49:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 14:49:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199509152149.OAA19041@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: news from fresno Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu This is Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor ..... I asked my train-the-trainer trainees in Salinas this week to conjecture the annual number of reported illness/injury cases "definitely" or "probably" associated with field residues in California. Early guesses topped 1,000. .... Based on Cal/EPA's recent "Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program Report," there were 12 such cases in 1993 -- down from 29 eye, skin, and systemic illness/injuries involving field residues in 1992. For a complete report, contact the Department of Pesticide Regulation at (916) 445-4222. .... "Fresno Clear." From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Sep 15 15:48:15 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 PAA13245 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 15:48:14 -0700 From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 15:54:01 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 15:44:21 -0700 To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: The NEWS From Fresno I've been trying to figure out the point in Steve Sutter's message regarding the number of field residue caused illnesses and injuries. Suddenly it occurred to me what it is. The agricultural worker pesticide safety program in California works. It's not perfect, yet, but I guess that is why we're incorporating the WPS into Title 3 CCR. Adolfo R. MarvinGallo:DPR "Such is life in the far, far West, where nobody is happy but everone is glad" From pat.marer@wserver.ipm.ucdavis.edu Fri Sep 15 16:11:55 1995 Received: from axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu (axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.41]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA14099 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 16:11:53 -0700 Received: by axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu; id AA15271; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 16:20:49 -0700 Message-Id: Date: 15 Sep 1995 16:11:50 -0800 From: "Pat Marer" Subject: F.Y.I. Comment on "News fro To: "Forum WPS " X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 9/15/95 3:59 PM F.Y.I. Comment on "News from Fresno" Steve Sutter made an excellent point about pesticide safety training actually working in California. California is the only state that mandates reporting of any actual or suspected pesticide injuries or illnesses and each of these incidents is investigated. The 1993 statistics have just been released by DPR. Even though the data are a couple of year old there is a defininte pattern: Between 1989 and 1993 the number of reported pesticide-related illnesses dropped 50%! The number of illnesses actually associated with pesticide exposures in agricultural workers dropped over 35% just between 1992 and 1993. This attests to the efforts made by DPR, the county ag commissioners, UC Cooperative Extension Offices, the UCIPM Pesticide Education Program, CAPCA, PAPA, and many other organizations and individuals who work very hard to emphasize pesticide safety. From craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu Sat Sep 16 09:56:12 1995 Received: from ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.65.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA22938 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 09:56:10 -0700 From: craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu Received: by ssc.msu.edu; Sat, 16 Sep 95 12:56:26 EDT Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 12:56:13 EDT Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: 21757rer@msu.edu, refugio.rochin@ssc.msu.edu Subject: frequency of illness/injury due to residue in email on fri 15 sep 95, steve sutter began an interesting discussion with the report that persons in his train-the-trainer classes overestimate by a factor of 100 or more the number "of illness/injury cases "definitely" or "probably" associated with field residues in California" gallo at dpr and marer at ucdavis both suggested that, in one way or another, the small number of cases was an indication of the effectiveness of the various efforts by many conscientious organizations and agencies i would not, in any want, want to disparage the strenuous efforts of the various organizations and agencies that pursue the broad and complex goal of improving worker protection, and that do so with very limited resources . . . i would however question the difference between cases and reported cases . . . both officials with state agencies, and activists with farm worker organizations, have on various occasions said to me that, of all the occasions where a medical condition might definitely or probably be associated with exposure to a field residue, only a very small percentage are brought to official attention . . . this is usually explained by the combination of: (1) the worker has little or nothing to gain by reporting, and (2) the worker risks various costs by reporting to me as sociologist, this says that if we really want to know how often exposure to residues definitely or probably results in illness or injury, we need to do some very careful and sensitive research, using interviewers whom field workers trust, getting detailed descriptions of medical conditions and exposure, and covering the broad range of illness and injury which might definitely or probably be due to exposure to residue . . . when research of this quality has been done on other topics concerning risks, it has generally been found that the frequencies of occurence are indeed much higher than the official statistics cheers, craig k harris dept of sociology michigan state university east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 From NLSSROL@ADMIN.BAS.NCSU.EDU Mon Sep 18 04:52:47 1995 Received: from cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu (cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.224]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id EAA15847 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 04:52:45 -0700 Received: from admin.bas.ncsu.edu by cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu (5.67b/SYSTEMS 12-28-92 15:15:00) id AA04189; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 07:52:43 -0400 Posted-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 08:18:21 EST Received: from ADMIN/MAILQUEUE by admin.bas.ncsu.edu (Mercury 1.21); 18 Sep 95 08:18:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by ADMIN (Mercury 1.21); 18 Sep 95 08:18:29 EST From: "Roger Lewis" Organization: N.C. State University To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 08:18:21 EST Subject: Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows v1.11 Message-Id: <2975A41816@admin.bas.ncsu.edu> How do I cancel from the forum? From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Mon Sep 18 10:06:38 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 KAA21693 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:06:36 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id NAA20699; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:00:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:00:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199509181700.NAA20699@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: Translation need! Can someone on the Forum who speaks Spanish please translate the following sentence into Spanish? "You should receive further pesticide safety training within five days." I'd really appreciate this. I need it to finish the basic safety information brochure we're doing in Maine. You can email it back to me at aftgoul@state.me.us or fax a response to me at 207-287-7548. Thanks. Tammy Gould Maine Board of Pesticides Control "Nous parlons francais dans l'etat du Maine." From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Mon Sep 18 12:37:37 1995 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA28093 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:37:32 -0700 Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id PAA05478; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:31:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:31:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199509181931.PAA05478@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: Translation need! Thank you to the people at UCDavis and everyone who offered translation assistance. I've received 4 (at last count) to choose from. In a follow-up to Don Baumgartner's recommendation that growers could use the EPA brochure "Protect Yourself From Pesticides ..." (Jan 1994) I noticed that it did not advise workers that further training would be provided in 5 days. I felt those statements needed to be added before growers used it. Not waiting for EPA to develop something, we will probably be reprinting a corrected version soon. Thanks again for your help. Tammy Gould Maine Board of Pesticides Control >Can someone on the Forum who speaks Spanish please translate the following >sentence into Spanish? > >"You should receive further pesticide safety training within five days." > >I'd really appreciate this. I need it to finish the basic safety >information brochure we're doing in Maine. You can email it back to me at >aftgoul@state.me.us or fax a response to me at 207-287-7548. Thanks. > >Tammy Gould >Maine Board of Pesticides Control > >"Nous parlons francais dans l'etat du Maine." > > From avillalobos@usaid.gov Mon Sep 18 12:40:37 1995 Received: from basa14001.usaid.gov (basa14001.usaid.gov [165.13.2.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA28310 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:40:03 -0700 Received: by basa14001.usaid.gov; Mon, 18 Sep 95 15:37:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 15:24:49 -24000 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Arturo Villalobos" Subject: re: Translation need! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Dear member (Tammy Gould): Here is your translation ..."Durante los proximos 5 dias, usted debera recibir capacitacion adicional sobre la seguridad en el uso de pesticidas" Regards from Costa Rica!!! From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Sep 18 12:59:41 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.89] (gia5mac9.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.89]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA29184 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:59:37 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:00:15 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: forwarding translations from M. Zavala & J. Horton The two messages below both got caught in Listproc error-checker. ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- >From melanie.zavala@wserver.ipm.ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 11:03:33 1995 Received: from axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu (axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.41]) Date: 18 Sep 1995 11:01:26 -0800 From: "Melanie Zavala" Subject: Re: Translation need! To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 Reply to: RE>Translation need! Ud. debe recibir entrenamiento adicional sobre la seguridad con los pesticidas dentro de cinco dias. ----------------------------------- >From Jane Horton, U.S. EPA Can someone on the Forum who speaks Spanish please translate the following sentence into Spanish? "You should receive further pesticide safety training within five days." Usted debe recibir entrenamiento addicional sobre las pesticidas entre cinco dias de trabajo. Tammy - this is literally, "You should receive further training about pesticides within five working days." Hope this helps. Florida has an excellent English /Spanish info sheet. You could get a copy from Mari Stavanja at ( 904) 487-0532. Call is you need more info - Jane Horton Region 4 EPA (404) 347-3555 ext. 6963 From msmoratorio@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 15:51:47 1995 Received: from peseta.ucdavis.edu (root@peseta.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.184]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA06835 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:51:45 -0700 From: msmoratorio@ucdavis.edu Received: from DialupEudora by peseta.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4) id PAA24532; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:51:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199509182251.PAA24532@peseta.ucdavis.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 15:50:57 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Translation need! >Can someone on the Forum who speaks Spanish please translate the following >sentence into Spanish? > >"You should receive further pesticide safety training within five days." Dentro de los proximos cinco dias usted recibira mas informacion referente al entrenamiento sobre "Seguridad en el uso de pesticidas" >I'd really appreciate this. I need it to finish the basic safety >information brochure we're doing in Maine. You can email it back to me at >aftgoul@state.me.us or fax a response to me at 207-287-7548. Thanks. > >Tammy Gould >Maine Board of Pesticides Control > >"Nous parlons francais dans l'etat du Maine." If you feel that it is too wordy, I could have another go. It is rather difficult to translate conditional. Regards Mario ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mario S. Moratorio Farm Advisor and County Director 311 Fair Lane Placerville, CA 95667 El Dorado County (916) 621 5505 (916) 642 0803 FAX From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 16:09:16 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA07801 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:09:13 -0700 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA28695; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:09:12 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:09:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199509182309.QAA28695@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (Gregorio Billikopf-Encina) Subject: Spanish translation Cc: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Tammy Gould) X-Mailer: Costa Rica provided the following translation: "Durante los proximos 5 dias, usted debera recibir capacitacion adicional sobre la seguridad en el uso de pesticidas" This is a good translation, and I have repeated it below using CAPs where each of the 4 accents go (e-mail does not accept accents yet): "Durante los prOximos 5 dIas, usted deberA recibir capacitaciOn adicional sobre la seguridad en el uso de pesticidas". The words to be accented are: proximos dias debera capacitacion Saludos, Gregorio ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From shenkm@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU Tue Sep 19 08:46:42 1995 Received: from BCC.ORST.EDU (root@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA20953 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 08:46:41 -0700 Received: from smo-1000-E by BCC.ORST.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02927; Tue, 19 Sep 95 08:47:48 PDT Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 08:47:48 PDT Message-Id: <9509191547.AA02927@BCC.ORST.EDU> X-Sender: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: shenkm@ava.BCC.ORST.EDU (Myron Shenk) Subject: Re: Spanish translation **Note, I originally addressed this to Gregorio Billikopf Encina, at his UC Davis address, but have decided to send it to the Forum because of the general question I raise with the term "Pesticide Safety." I am fascinated with languages, and I am convinced that I seldom convey more than 20 percent of what I really want to, and then the listener probably captures less that 20 percent of what I have said. Wow, will any of you grasp more than 4 percent of what I would really like to convey here?!!! I do not blame the reader/listener, but languish over my own inability to convey my intents clearly and concisely. Gregorio, as one who learned Spanish later in life (at age 23), but having lived in Latin America for nearly 13 years, I am always painfully aware that it can be difficult to translate the true meaning within a cultural context. For example, most of you suggested the phrase "seguridad en el uso de pesticidas." For training in Spanish here in Oregon, I have reasoned that what we really want to teach is the safe use of pesticides, so I have used the phrase "el uso seguro de pesticidas." Frankly, I don't know what idea these words "el uso seguro de los pesticidas" truely convey to a worker with limited education, who has recently arrived from Mexico, or other Central American countries. One could raise a similar point on capacitacion vs entrenamiento, althought the latter two words are probably less controversial. Does training really increase ability (capacidad)? To be more philosophical, I question the term "pesticide safety" in English. Are pesticides safe? Do pesticides have an innate quality of "safety" about them? I doubt that (albeit, some will argue that they provide safety from the ravages of pests, but that is different). I would argue that what we really want to convey to the reader/listener is the idea that we should be teaching users how to use pesticides in a safe manner. Thus, I do not use the term "pesticide safety" in English, but rather "the safe use of pesticides," and consequently, I have tried to convey this idea in Spanish with the phrase "el uso seguro" or on occasions, I have used "en una manera correcta." (using pesticides correctly). Language can be misused so much that we eventually accept the idea being conveyed without questioning the manner in which the idea was presented. For example, a local store occasionally advertises a Gigantic Baby Sale. Do you really think they are selling babies; especially huge, extra large, "Gigantic" babies? We all know they want us to think they have a super sale of goods for babies, and I doubt that more than a dozen persons have challenged their phraseology. Well, I hope I haven't diverted us all down a bumpy road. Gregoria, don't forget to answer my specific question, is the term "el uso seguro de los pesticidas" acceptable? Thanks. Myron Shenk, Oregon State U. >Costa Rica provided the following translation: > >"Durante los proximos 5 dias, usted debera recibir capacitacion adicional >sobre la seguridad en el uso de pesticidas" > >This is a good translation, and I have repeated it below using CAPs where >each of the 4 accents go (e-mail does not accept accents yet): > >"Durante los prOximos 5 dIas, usted deberA recibir capacitaciOn adicional >sobre la seguridad en el uso de pesticidas". > >The words to be accented are: > >proximos >dias >debera >capacitacion > >Saludos, > >Gregorio >******************************************** > Gregorio Billikopf Encina > (Gregory Encina Billikopf) > University of California > 733 County Center 3 > Modesto, CA 95355 > > phone: (209) 525-6654 > FAX: (209) 525-4969 > e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu > >******************************************** > > > From cpasian@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Tue Sep 19 09:46:48 1995 Received: from beauty.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (beauty.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu [128.146.216.26]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA23238 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 09:46:46 -0700 Received: from claudiop.agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu by beauty.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (8.6.10/4.940426) id MAA18791; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:46:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:46:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199509191646.MAA18791@beauty.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> X-Sender: cpasian@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: cpasian@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Claudio Pasian) Subject: Re: To remove yourself from the list send the following line: SIGNOFF FLORINET to the following address: listserv@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu >How do I cancel from the forum? > > ****************************************************************************** Claudio C. Pasian Voice: (614) 292-9941 Dept. of Horticulture & Crop Science FAX: (614) 292-3505 The Ohio State University E-mail: pasian.1@osu.edu ****************************************************************************** From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 16:18:55 1995 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA08969 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:18:53 -0700 Received: from (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA24281 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:18:48 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:18:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199509192318.QAA24281@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu (Gregorio Billikopf-Encina) Subject: Re: Spanish translation X-Mailer: Myron Shenk brings up a number of interesting comments/topics. Yes, I do feel "El uso seguro de los pesticidas" is a good phrase (bonus: no accents!). This translates into "The safe use of pesticides," while "la seguridad en el uso de los pesticidas" translates into "Safety in the use of pesticides." Fortunately, neither of these two choices translates back into "pesticide safety." Thinking along the lines Myron has suggested, I guess we are not really talking--for field workers--about the safe use of pesticides. Rather, we are addressing the issue of reducing chances of pesticide exposure, aren't we? Strictly speaking, it would be handlers who would be interested in the safe use of pesticides. However, either sentence does convey the essential point. Regarding the words "capacitaciOn" or "entrenamiento," either word is fine. There is an interesting phenomena that some "sophisticated" words in English are common in Spanish and vice versa. For example, most workers understand the word "consejo" or "counsel" better than "sugerencia" or "suggestion." There are many such examples. Myron, thanks for making us think. Gregorio ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Sep 20 12:49:35 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.89] (gia5mac9.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.89]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA00690 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:49:23 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:50:08 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: revisions of warning sign and decontamination supply reqs. The notice below from today's Federal Register is somewhat abridged. --HR ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Federal Register: September 20, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 182)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 48680-48681] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 170 [OPP-250109; FRL-4974-2] Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture of Proposed Regulations on Worker Protection Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture two proposed regulations under section 25(c)(3) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The first proposed rule would revise the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to allow the substitution of an alternate language for the Spanish portion of the warning sign and to allow the use of smaller warning signs in keeping with the nature of the agricultural operation. The second proposed rule would modify the requirements that decontamination supplies be provided to agricultural workers. The modifications would add flexibility and promote the use of less toxic pesticides, while ensuring that worker risks are not increased. This action is required by FIFRA section 25(a)(2)(A). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: For the decontamination proposal Joshua First and for the sign proposal John MacDonald, Certification, Training and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Field Operation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm. 1114, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 703-305-7437 and 703-305-7370, respectively, e-mail: first.joshua@epamail.epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 25(a)(2)(A) of FIFRA requires that the Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any proposed regulation at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the Federal Register. If within 30 days after receiving it, the Secretary comments on the proposed regulation in writing, the Administrator shall issue for publication in the Federal Register, .. . . . . Dated: September 1, 1995. Daniel M. Barolo, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 95-23202 Filed 9-19-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From pmcmullan@EM.AGR.CA Wed Sep 20 19:48:56 1995 Received: from EM.AGR.CA (EM.AGR.CA [192.197.71.133]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA15041 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 19:48:54 -0700 Received: from GW1-Message_Server by EM.AGR.CA with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 22:47:32 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:45:41 -0400 From: Patrick McMullan To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: I am currently living in Canada but am investigating employment possibilities in the U.S. I have some questions on WPS and would appreciate assistance in obtaining some information. I understand that one must be certified as a handler to actually work with pesticides. However, I am not clear on points relating to this. Does one have to get certification in each state that you may be working in? Does certification granted in one state automatically give certification in another? I am interested in this as North Dakota is the closest state to my location and it may be easiest to be get certification there. Who are certified trainers and how does one go about becoming a certified trainer? Are certified trainers from the Dept. of Agriculture for that particular state or private personel? Also, I have questions relating directly to WPS and crop consultants/private researchers as well as other issues relating to crop consultants/private researchers. I would like to subsribe to a list for crop consultants if one exists. If you know of one, I would appreciate your forwarding of the address. My personal e-mail address is: pmcmullan@em.agr.ca Thanks for your help. Patrick McMullan From SJButler@aol.com Mon Sep 25 06:50:17 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 GAA26159 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 06:50:15 -0700 From: SJButler@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23610 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:45:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:45:28 -0400 Message-ID: <950925094528_28544645@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: news from fresno Steve, I'm glad you used the word conjecture. Florida's Workers' Comp, First Report of Injuries statistics have almost no suspected pesticide incidents. We maintain that is because there is very little. Farm worker advocates say its because the doctors, in spite of a mandatory state reporting requirement, are intimidated by the growers. Sure fits with every shy, insecure, non-egotistical doctor I've ever known... -- Scottie Butler, General Counsel, Fla Farm Bureau Fed -- From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Sep 25 23:12:04 1995 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA23568 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 23:12:02 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id CAA18528; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 02:11:31 -0400 Date: 26 Sep 95 00:54:21 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: "'WPS-Forum'" Subject: Reentry Dilemma Message-ID: <950926045421_73507.555_HHB52-2@CompuServe.COM> Researchers at the University of California are looking at a new way to administer pheremones to a field. Have you ever seen the little "puffer" installed in a bathroom to dispense deoderant? Some bright person was probably reading the graffiti when they thought, "We can use that to time-release pheremones!" That's right, every 30 minutes, 24 hours a day there are little puffs of pheremones being applied. The total used could be 0.1 gram/acre/day. What would the reentry situation be? Even with a 4 hour REI, the field would never be clear. Would the WPS then be a barrier to the implementation of this technique? Would growers prefer to use conventional pesticides rather than have REI problems? If you apply a category I pesticide, at least after 2 or 3 days the field is clear for reentry. For details, see the September edition of Vegetable Grower, Western edition. Bob Roach 73507.555@Compuserve.com From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Tue Sep 26 05:57:16 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 FAA26859 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 05:57:14 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id IAA18107; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:56:13 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id IAA24129; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:58:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:55:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Reentry Dilemma To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: "'WPS-Forum'" In-Reply-To: <950926045421_73507.555_HHB52-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII The WPS contains an exception for "attractants or repellents in traps." The PR Notice ((93-7) that enacted the 1992 WPS further clarified that application using a point-source pheromone dispenser of a size easily retrieved from the field was out of scope of the WPS. There would be no REI -- not 2 days and not 4 hours. Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From 73414.252@compuserve.com Wed Sep 27 04:38:32 1995 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA28714 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 04:38:30 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA10459; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 07:37:58 -0400 Date: 27 Sep 95 07:33:58 EDT From: Judith Hauswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: pheremone reentry Message-ID: <950927113358_73414.252_DHS39-1@CompuServe.COM> An additional piece of information concerning Bob Roach's question on REIs for pheremones and Sally McDonald's reply. In addition to attractants in traps and other easily retrievable devices being outside the scope of the WPS, some pheremone registrants have sought and obtained 0 hour REIs from EPA. Their pheremones were impregnated into small devices such as plastic fibers that are not easily retrievable and are in the scope of the WPS. The rationale behind the 0-hour REI is that the pheremone is in plastic or similar material and is released into the air at constant levels over a period of time such as 14 days. The constant release from the devices in which they are impregnated makes an REI illogical. The absence of known mammalian toxicity to these pheremones made a 0-hour REI plausible. The Agency agreed and granted the 0-hour REI. Curt Lunchick Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc. Arlington, VA From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed Sep 27 11:29:35 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 LAA06970 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 11:29:33 -0700 Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id OAA17339; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:28:27 -0400 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id OAA13569; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:30:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:22:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Pheromone Dispensers To: WPS Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It has been brought to my attention that the pheromone dispensers that Bob Roach was discussing were possibly not the typical slow-release pheromone dispenser. If the pheromone dispenser being described was emitting spurts of pressurized spray at timed intervals, that is not the type of pheromone dispensing device which is automatically outside the scope of the WPS. If the pheromone is being distributed as a spray, the registrant would have to request from EPA a zero-day REI. Such a request would be considered provided that pheromone-specific data met the stringent criteria under which EPA occasionally grants such REIs. Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Sep 28 15:44:12 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.95] ([128.32.251.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA19498 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:43:33 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:44:49 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: denial of REI exception request Back in June the State of Delaware filed a petition requesting that workers be allowed to enter fields treated with chlorothalonil, before expiration of the 48-hour REI, to hand harvest cantaloupe and squash (the petition is in forum archive as "del-pet1.frn"). In a notice that was signed on September 19, 1995, and published yesterday in the Federal Register (September 27--Volume 60, Number 187), the EPA has announced its denial of this request for administrative exception. The notice includes a lengthy review of major issues and comments received. It will be placed in the forum archive next week. Below is the summary section of the notice. --Howard Rosenberg ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is denying the State of Delaware's exception request for early entry into chlorothalonil-treated fields to allow hand labor harvesting of cantaloupes and squash 24 hours after application. In this decision, EPA is also denying an exception to Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia, for all crops that were requested during the public comment period for Delaware's proposal. Under Sec. 170.112(e) of the Worker Protection Standards (WPS), EPA may establish additional exceptions to the WPS provision of prohibiting early entry to perform routine hand labor tasks. The Agency grants or denies a request for an exception based on a risk-benefit analysis. Chlorothalonil, a wettable granular fungicide, has eye and skin irritation concerns and other kidney effects. It has also been classified a probable human carcinogen. In consideration of increased risks associated with performing early entry hand labor tasks on chlorothalonil-treated crops, and incomplete economic benefits information, the Agency has determined that the risks outweigh the benefits of allowing early entry into chlorothalonil- treated fields for hand harvest activities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Ager or Ameesha Mehta, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e- mail address: Rm. 1121, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Mall #2, Arlington, VA, (703-305-7371), e-mail: ager.sara@epamail.epa.gov. or mehta.ameesha@epamail.epa.gov. From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Sep 28 21:15:49 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 VAA27848 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 21:15:47 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id AAA04820; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:15:16 -0400 Date: 28 Sep 95 22:20:24 EDT From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: "'INTERNET:wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU'" Subject: Traps? Message-ID: <950929022023_73507.555_HHB108-1@CompuServe.COM> Sally, It is good to know that the WPS is susceptible to some common sense. Your reply does raise a couple of questions. What are the implications of the statement that the dispenser must be of a size easliy retrieved from the field? Does that mean it has to be retrieved? What would be the properties of a dispenser not easily removed? Too big? Too small? Too many? For many years the artichoke industry has been trying to develop a pheremone strategy to control the artichoke plume moth. The majority of pesticide applications are for this pest. It has been a vexing problem. Two dispenser strategies that have been tried are APM "ropes" that are twisted around plants at intervals and micro-tubes that are applied by air over the field. Do either of these meet the criteria of PR Notice 93-7? Where do you get these PR notices? Is there an on-line source for this information? Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com ---------- From: INTERNET:wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 1995 12:10 AM To: "Worker Protection Standard Information Forum" The WPS contains an exception for "attractants or repellents in traps." The PR Notice ((93-7) that enacted the 1992 WPS further clarified that application using a point-source pheromone dispenser of a size easily retrieved from the field was out of scope of the WPS. There would be no REI -- not 2 days and not 4 hours. Sally From 73414.252@compuserve.com Fri Sep 29 04:27:36 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 EAA03515 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 04:27:34 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA29956; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 07:27:01 -0400 Date: 29 Sep 95 07:24:58 EDT From: Judith Hauswirth <73414.252@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Pheromone dispensers Message-ID: <950929112457_73414.252_DHS39-1@CompuServe.COM> In response to Bob Roach's question concerning pheromone dispenser size and whether the device in within the scope of WPS or not, let me relate my own experiences with assisting in the registration of these products. Basically, (and no suprise) the answer will be 1) obviously the device is easily retrievable and outside the scope of WPS. These include ties wrapped around the plant, plastic coils like from a telephone cord, and rubber cups. 2) the device is obviously to small to be retrieve such as microencapsulated pheromone formulations or microfilaments. These devices are within the scope of WPS. Based on the mode of action and the toxicity profile, the registrant of such products can petition for a 0-hr REI. The Agency has granted 0-hr REIs for some of these pheromones. 3) The gray area that is subject to opinion. Plastic fibers about 0.5 to 1 inch long come to mind. When I had to deal with this question, I sent examples of the fibers into Tom Adamcyzk of the WPS deviant response group. The Agency provided a quick response to the question. The fibers were considered too small to be easily retrievable and therefore within the scope of WPS but they were eventually granted 0-hr REIs. I would recommend that the artichoke growers (or any grower group) work with the registrants of the pheromones that they are using. Together they can work with EPA to amend the WPS parts of the label to obtain 0-hr REIs for pheromone products within the scope of WPS and with no toxicity concerns for the pheromone and the device. Hope this helps. Curt Lunchick (703) 312-8555 From pbigelow@lamar.colostate.edu Fri Sep 29 16:27:40 1995 Received: from yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (root@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.64]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA22603 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 16:27:38 -0700 Received: from pbigelow.VETMED.ColoState.EDU by yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA44437; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 17:27:35 -0600 Message-Id: <9509292327.AA44437@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 17:35:33 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: pbigelow@lamar.colostate.edu (Philip L. Bigelow) Subject: Re: Signing up for the wps-fourm Cc: sbramble@lamar.colostate.edu A freind of mine would like to join the WPS fourm. She is an industrial hygienist working with the High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (HICAHS). What is the procedure - it has been a long time and I can't find a copy of the email I sent when joining. Thanks!! Phil Bigelow Department of Environmental Health Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO