From LPUNDT@canr1.cag.uconn.edu Fri Feb 14 11:57:53 1997 Received: from UConnVM.UConn.Edu (uconnvm.uconn.edu [137.99.26.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA07397 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from canr1.cag.uconn.edu by UConnVM.UConn.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Fri, 14 Feb 97 14:58:00 EST Received: from CANR1/MERCURYQ by canr1.cag.uconn.edu (Mercury 1.21); 14 Feb 97 14:57:28 EST Received: from MERCURYQ by CANR1 (Mercury 1.21); 14 Feb 97 14:56:58 EST From: "Leanne S. Pundt" Organization: Agriculture & Natural Resources To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:56:27 EST Subject: captan fungicide X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Leanne S. Pundt" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <1E24429570A@canr1.cag.uconn.edu> Hello: Could members of this group specify for me the reasons for captan fungicide (for use on ornamentals) having a 4 day REI? Thank you Leanne S. Pundt Cooperative Extension Educator Greenhouse IPM Coordinator 1066 Saybrook Road, Box 70 Haddam, CT 06438 tel: 860-345-4511 fax: 860-345-3357 email: lpundt@canr1.cag.uconn.edu From RUTHM@mces.msstate.edu Fri Feb 14 13:02:58 1997 Received: from Tut.MsState.Edu (root@Tut.MsState.Edu [130.18.80.36]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09169 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:02:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from MCES.MsState.Edu (CharonPC.MCES.MsState.Edu [130.18.148.4]); by Tut.MsState.Edu using ESMTP (8.6.12/6.5m-FWP); id PAA27220; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:02:36 -0600 Received: from MCES/MAILQUEUE by MCES.MsState.Edu (Mercury 1.21); 14 Feb 97 15:02:36 GMT+6 Received: from MAILQUEUE by MCES (Mercury 1.21); 14 Feb 97 15:02:18 GMT+6 From: "Ruth Morgan" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:02:09 CST Subject: RCPT: captan fungicide Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <3F385217D6C@MCES.MsState.Edu> Confirmation of reading: your message - Date: 14 Feb 97 14:56 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: captan fungicide Was read at 15:02, 14 Feb 97. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Morgan, Interim Leader-EEU Pesticide Coordinator and Pesticide Impact Assessment Specialist Mississippi State University FAX: (601) 325-5204 PHONE: (601) 325-8716 EMAIL: ruthm@mces.msstate.edu From tolson@ocssoft.com Sat Feb 15 21:06:20 1997 Received: from ntserv1.ocsnet.net (ntserv1.ocsnet.net [207.104.141.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA25926 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 21:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from tolson.ocsnet.net (unverified [207.104.141.10]) by ntserv1.ocsnet.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 21:07:15 -0800 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 21:07:15 -0800 Message-ID: X-Sender: tolson@ocssoft.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Ted Olson Subject: ChemTrak Online press release FYI: OCS Software has announced 'ChemTrak Online,' a new version of the company's veteran ChemTrak(tm) program for pesticide applications management, recordkeeping, and reporting where required. CTO is Internet-based and will run on all Windows, Macintosh, and Unix systems where a standard web browser is supported. A complete press release and other product and contact information can be found at [http://www.ocssoft.com]. From PHASPOWELL@aol.com Sun Feb 16 07:58:16 1997 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA27783 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:58:13 -0800 (PST) From: PHASPOWELL@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA07640 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:57:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:57:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970216105708_-1240579657@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: captan fungicide Leanne, Some years ago Captan was implicated as a carcinogen. Got on the PD4 list. That is the kiss of death as far as the EPA is concerned. I noticed in a recent use survey that a lot of Captan is being used in New England, but no where else in the US in greenhouses This is bad! Whenever I can, I try and switch them to Protect T/O, a mancozeb with similar performance, except for use for damping off. For damping off, I recommend 3336 plus Subdue. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Feb 19 09:01:29 1997 Received: from [136.152.70.211] (sophie.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.70.211]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA20717 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:01:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.4 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:03:51 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Howard Rosenberg Subject: revised pesticide label manual available from EPA hot off the EPA wire: ----------------------------------------------- FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1997 EPA ISSUES REVISED PESTICIDE LABEL MANUAL AND MAKES ALL PESTICIDE LABELS AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM DISK EPA has issued a second edition of its "Label Review Manual" and is making it publicly available. The manual reflects current EPA policy and serves both as an aide for Agency employees responsible for reviewing pesticide product labels and as guidance for registrants responsible for preparing all product labels. The goal of the new manual is to improve the quality and the consistency of all labels on pesticide products. The manual order number is PB 97-117667 and can be obtained by calling the National Technical Information Service at 703-487-4650; fax 703-321-8547. Electronic access to the manual can be obtained at the following two Internet addresses: gopher.epa.gov - - under rules and regulations -- and on the Internet at http://www.pestlaw.com. The Agency has also converted all pesticide product labels dating back to l971 from microfiche to CD-ROM format and is making these available to the public. The 26 disk set improves access to information on the labels and reduces the cost of retriving this information. The disks contain images of the registered pesticide products which are indexed by company, product and date. The retrieval program allows users to search by registration number, or partial number when the complete number is unknown. The basic cost of the disk set (PB-97-594040) is $388 in the United States; $776 outside the United States. Updates, which EPA will produce three times annually, are $84 each. Orders can be placed by calling the National Technical Information System (see above). # # # -------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Rosenberg Cooperative Ext Specialist, Ag Personnel Mgt 320 Giannini Hall Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics Berkeley, CA 94720 University of California, Berkeley 510/642-7103 http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From RDSHS@aol.com Thu Feb 20 12:26:45 1997 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA25155 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:26:43 -0800 (PST) From: RDSHS@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id PAA22338 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:26:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:26:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970220152605_1315513624@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: captan fungicide Why do you ask? Reed Smith From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Feb 25 13:08:25 1997 Received: from RT-MAIL2.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (rt-mail2.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.68]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09702 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by RT-MAIL2.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:09:04 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:05:38 -0500 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: WPS and Garden Centers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline It has recently come to the attention of both the U.S. EPA Region 3 (Philadelphia) and Region 5 (Chicago) offices that some private consultants for the nursery industry may be preaching misleading information pertaining to coverage under the WPS. Specifically, a speaker at the PA Nurserymen Association Annual Convention mislead the audience in stating that garden centers (retail establishments) are exempt from the WPS. Although these misinterpretations are probably isolated events now, we and some State Agencies continue to remain concerned about misleading the regulated community and confusing them any further than necessary. As interpretaed in the U.S. EPA Interpretive Guidance Workgroup (IGW) Question and Answer (Q&A) Document dated March 15, 1995, 14.16 clearly interprets that retail establishments holding plant stock do indeed fall under coverage of the WPS if they use pesticides with WPS labeling. However, it is unlikely that these establishments will be routinely inspected, and more often than not, the pesticides that are used in these situations will be home use products which lack WPS labeling. One should keep in mind though that if any incident occurs, the retail establishment would be liable. From PHASPOWELL@aol.com Wed Feb 26 11:27:19 1997 Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA01233 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:27:15 -0800 (PST) From: PHASPOWELL@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA13436 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:26:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:26:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970226142635_1746699233@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: WPS and Garden Centers Dear Don and Others; I was the one who made the remark and was called on it by a gentleman in the audience from the PA Dept of Agr. Your reply was helpful to me, but I need one more bit of info. Are retail establishments holding, not producing, plant material required to use WPS labeled products? If not, then what I said was basically correct. What about products that are labeled for WPS uses as well as for non WPS uses? In those situations, is it to be assumed that the use is non WPS, or WPS? I keep thinking the EPA is concerned about protection of workers in agr. production, not retailing. Rest assured, I am not trying to circumvent the regulations, only clear up the grey areas. If the grey areas become invasive to the channels of commerce, something will have to be done or there may be real problems with credibility and sense of the whole WPS effort. Thank you, CCP From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed Feb 26 14:31:33 1997 Received: from R5SMTP1.R05TOK.EPA.GOV (r5smtp1.r05tok.epa.gov [204.46.177.42]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06998 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from R5CHG-Message_Server by R5SMTP1.R05TOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:29:39 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:28:50 -0600 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: WPS and Garden Centers -Reply Dear Chuck and Others, In reply to the question about scope of WPS coverage by retail establishments, again WPS IGW Q&A 14.16 clarifies that for the purposes of the WPS the U.S. EPA considers that plants maintained for sale are NOT different from production and, therefore, retail establishments which use products with WPS labeling must comply with the regulation and provide the protections under it. EPA concluded that it would not be useful to define production in such a way as to exclude maintenance of plants, whether or not they are being held for sale. If you would check the definition of an "agricultural plant" under the definition portion of the Rule, it is defined as "any plant grown or maintaned for commercial or research purposes...". This issue was debated at the time the Q&A was under consideration by EPA. As for products with ag. and non-ag. uses, EPA encouraged all registrants to split these products when all were relabeled so this confusion would not result. If a product still has both uses, when involved in plant production they would have to comply with the WPS. **************************************** >>> 2/26/97, 01:26pm >>> Dear Don and Others; I was the one who made the remark and was called on it by a gentleman in the audience from the PA Dept of Agr. Your reply was helpful to me, but I need one more bit of info. Are retail establishments holding, not producing, plant material required to use WPS labeled products? If not, then what I said was basically correct. What about products that are labeled for WPS uses as well as for non WPS uses? In those situations, is it to be assumed that the use is non WPS, or WPS? I keep thinking the EPA is concerned about protection of workers in agr. production, not retailing. Rest assured, I am not trying to circumvent the regulations, only clear up the grey areas. If the grey areas become invasive to the channels of commerce, something will have to be done or there may be real problems with credibility and sense of the whole WPS effort. Thank you, CCP From sclark@cce.cornell.edu Thu Feb 27 04:19:48 1997 Received: from freedom.cce.cornell.edu (FREEDOM.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA16746 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 04:19:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from cenet.cce.cornell.edu (CNSLIP-DIALUP-13.CIT.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.249.22]) by freedom.cce.cornell.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id HAA20149 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:20:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970227122007.00686c90@freedom.cce.cornell.edu> X-Sender: wc22@freedom.cce.cornell.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:20:07 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Scott Clark Subject: Re: WPS and Garden Centers -Reply The confusing part is that it appears retail garden centers have the choice to use pesticides with or without the WPS labelling while ag producers must use labels with WPS labelling. So, it appears that if a retail center selects a pesticide off their shelf, such as one for the homeowner without WPS information on it, they do not have to follow the WPS regulation. But if they use a pesticide with WPS information they must follow all regulations. So, do they need a central posting area and training for workers? scott clark cornell cooperative extension - suffolk county 246 griffing ave riverhead ny 11901 516-727-7850 phone 516-727-7130 fax sclark@cce.cornell.edu From 74642.174@CompuServe.COM Thu Feb 27 05:55:32 1997 Received: from hil-img-5.compuserve.com (hil-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.177.135]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA17229 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 05:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by hil-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id IAA17179; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:54:57 -0500 Date: 27 Feb 97 08:53:13 EST From: "Craig J. Regelbrugge" <74642.174@CompuServe.COM> To: "'WPS FORUM'" Subject: wps and garden centers Message-ID: <970227135312_74642.174_BHW47-3@CompuServe.COM> As has been clarified in previous messages, EPA has decided the pesticide label determines whether garden centers must comply with the wps. If any product that bears wps labeling is used in the garden center, all label-specific wps use instructions must be followed. In addition, it is our understanding that use of one such product initiates the need to comply with all generic rule provisions - training, central listing or posting, etc. This is the message that AAN has put forth in communications to members in the retail garden center community. Don Baumgartner has provided the IWG decision reference in earlier messages. As a practical matter, AAN has believed from the beginning that this decision by EPA was flawed, and conflicts with the intent of the rule's authors. (AAN had been told throughout the development of the wps rule that garden centers would only be covered to the extent that they have a growing component to their business). Virtually across the board, garden centers do not qualify as agricultural operations for zoning, tax, and regulatory compliance perspectives. The IWG's decision has created compliance chaos in the retail garden center community, and is poorly conceived from a risk standpoint (the use of pesticides in garden center operations is normally limited to the occasional "rescue treatment" situation. It is not surprising that from a training and outreach standpoint, even those who know the industry well have been confused by what AAN sees as an ill-conceived drawing of the line regarding wps regulatory compliance in retail establishments. Nonetheless, our outreach efforts will continue... Craig J. Regelbrugge American Assn. of Nurserymen From krieger@mail.ucr.edu Thu Feb 27 07:46:07 1997 Received: from orange.ucr.edu (orange.ucr.edu [138.23.225.71]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA18132 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:46:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [138.23.134.122] by 138.23.134.122 with SMTP; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 7:45:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:49:35 +0100 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: krieger@mail.ucr.edu (Bob Krieger) Subject: Re: wps and garden centers Craig, Your note is of interest. I am sure that one of the reasons for the condition you termed "choas" is the fact that there are no data supporting your position. I believe it to be correct, but measurements/estimates of exposure have not been provided to my knowledge. Whether wps applies or not seems irrelevant to me. Bob Krieger From pandre@mail.state.mo.us Thu Feb 27 13:03:13 1997 Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA27437 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:03:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (state [168.166.2.67]) by services.state.mo.us (8.8.3/8.8.0) with SMTP id PAA19361 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:03:03 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:03:03 -0600 (CST) From: Paul Andre X-Sender: pandre@services.state.mo.us To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Garden centers etc Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Greetings all, I tried to send this earlier but typos in the address sent it back to me. One difficulty that I see in all of this discussion is the results of 95-5 etc. We are seeing many "homeowner" registrants puting limitations on the lable. These limit use to homeowner or noncommercial settings. It seems that many of these registrants don't want to deal with WPS It would seem that this would prevent garden centers from using homeowner products from their shelves. Any thoughts? From krieger@mail.ucr.edu Thu Feb 27 16:02:14 1997 Received: from orange.ucr.edu (orange.ucr.edu [138.23.225.71]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03817 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [138.23.134.122] by 138.23.134.122 with SMTP; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:01:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:05:43 +0100 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: krieger@mail.ucr.edu (Bob Krieger) Subject: Re: wps and garden centers Craig, The question isn't one of authority, retail establishments or resale; but responsible chemical use, I think. How much human pesticide exposure results from pesticide use in the industry? Whether the industry is under WPS or not. Any user of a chemical technology including pesticides has the responsibility to determine whether the prescribed practices put people or the environment at undue risk. In some cases, the responsibility is individual and in other circumstances it is assigned to others, including regulatory authority. From my vantage point, the determination of safety must be transparent to the public and to those who are potentially exposed (either intentionally, accidentally, or unavoidably). Chemical exposure is a verifiable certainty for everyone who uses pesticides or harvests the treated foliage and flowers (including roses). This certainty is also extended to people who purchase those products regardless of source. It is disappointing that some consider the issue to be whether or not the product is WPS labelled. The relevant question is how much exposure of mixer/loaders/applicators (handlers) or harvesters (cutters) occurs as a result of pesticide use in the greenhouse, nursery or wherever. The amount of pesticide exposure involved for either group could be demonstrated. Plain and simply, that exposure information is not available to my knowledge. Illness data (of the quality available) is no substitute. You asked in your reply whether I offer to spearhead an effort to collect the relevant pesticide exposure data. Certainly not by this note (but I do find it promising that you and others who are responsible may recognize the need to pursue such new information about exposure and insight about its significance). If a request for proposals were issued, I would respond since providing exposure data is well within our capability and that of other research groups. My purpose here, however, is to encourage dialogue and positive action to end uncertainty about worker exposure issues. Employment of naked people in the industry to grow flowers, other nursery materials, or whatever would unquestionably be of potential harm. Clothing provides substantial protection (and I am sure that is why EPA wisely calls for its use). The degree of risk from the chemical exposures in your industry could be reduced by clothing, WPS or not. What you need to do is to measure is how much!