Below is a sampling of items posted in WPS-Forum by participants. We are grateful to the authors for granting permission to reprint in Labor Management Decisions and additionally to some for minor modifications that update the original messages for this purpose.
While the WPS standards may protect workers, the overall impact on pesticide use may be negative. In our state, apple growers have adopted IPM on a wide scale. The success of this program depends on two things changed by the WPS standards. These are the ability of scouts or consultants to enter fields when they deem it important, and the ability of the growers to keep workers in the field. The consultant who has to spend much of the day in a Tyvek suit and respirator may not die from neural toxins, but dehydration becomes a real possibility. In actuality, most will probably stick with more reasonable clothing, and risk the wrath of the WPS enforcers. However, growers may choose to forget IPM entirely since a mid-week application may keep workers out of the field for a few days. Better to apply the pesticides every Friday afternoon and have the fields available Monday!
Has our search for the risk-free society once again left us on the horns of a dilemma?
Dan Cooley
dcooley@pltpath.umass.edu
In summary, the recent congressional action provides the following: During 1994, users must comply with the WPS requirements that are spelled out on the label. These include requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE), the restricted entry interval, and the requirement for "double notification" if this requirement is on the label. Users do not need to comply with the referenced requirements of the label (those that re- fer to the WPS but are not fully spelled out) until January 1, 1995. These requirements include pesticide safety training for agricultural workers and handlers, decontamination sites, notification of workers about pesticide applications, display of information about pesticide applications, emergency assistance, and display of a safety poster. The legislation also provides optional PPE requirements for some irrigation work in 1994 and excludes crop advisors from WPS coverage until January 1, 1995.
Note: The above refers to Federal requirements only. These may be superseded by your State law.
Al French
USDA Coordinator of Agricultural
Labor Affairs
afrench@ers.bitnet
Anything new on the notification for pesticide applications? Last I read, the notification could be oral or with signs unless the material is a category 1 pesticide (signs only). Any practical advice on oral warnings? Often in vineyards partial blocks are treated, either for pest control purposes or the application for a day ended in the middle of a block. How is posting/notification handled in this case? Also, how will the inconsistencies between California posting regulations and EPA notification regulations play out?
Zach Berkowitz
Domaine Chandon
Zax0114@aol.com
Here in New Jersey our state pesticide codes require us to orally notify workers of all reentry times. Because of this, we have to post only when the label specifically says to. Concern exists, however, because of the type of agriculture we have. One large nursery I work with needs over 1,700 different signs due to the fact that they have many small blocks of different species which are all treated differently. I also work with many sweet corn growers that follow a TIGHT SPRAY SCHEDULE late in the season on possibly a 3 day schedule, which would mean that the fields would have to be perpetually posted.
Still another problem we have to address relates to day haul workers. Training is feasible provided the workers are the same individuals day in and day out, but what about situations where workers come on a daily basis from the city and most are not repeats on any type of regular basis? One blueberry grower uses 2,700 pickers daily, which must be nothing short of a nightmare to deal with.
Over the past two years I have personally trained over 400 workers in English, Spanish, and even one group in Cambodian. I jumped the gun in order to get growers used to the idea of training workers long before it was required. Interestingly, both myself and the growers felt the training would be barely tolerated by workers, when in fact most workers were sincerely interested and asked many good questions. Most programs went 45 minutes to an hour longer than scheduled because of the questions. As an added bonus for them we also covered ticks and Lyme Disease.
While the new requirements will be difficult, I feel we in extension can foster participation and cooperation if we have a positive attitude toward WPS. As I tell my growers, happy and healthy workers mean good work that translates into profit potential.
Ray Samulis
Rutgers Cooperative Extension of
Burlington County
SAMULIS@aesop.rutgers.edu
The Central Coast vegetable producing counties are like the red-headed stepchildren of regulation implementation. It is just not like growing major crops in the Midwest or field crops in the Central Valley. When "Full Use Reporting" was implemented it was a real challenge because of the large amounts of information to handle. When counties started performing PUR data entry it was necessary to modify the state PUR computer program. The state field posting regulation was not working in Monterey County so they had to pass a more stringent county regulation. I feel that because minor crops are almost by definition the exception to the rule, they are written off when regulations are designed as a complication to be dealt with later. At this time EPA is facing neither the grave complications nor the lack of usefulness of certain notification requirements of WPS in Central Coast counties.
With the proposed changes in California, workers within one-quarter mile of a field during a restricted entry interval must be notified, rather than the previous state standard of all who were likely to enter the field. Field posting satisfies this requirement except when the labeling requires both written and oral posting. The logistics of accomplishing oral notification in vegetable production situations are very difficult.
There is a U.S. EPA slide show that illustrates their concept of a farm. It has a little white house, a big red barn, a silo and a field of corn. They show the grower giving oral warning to a few employees and showing them a calender with the REI days crossed out. On the Central Coast the situation is much more dynamic. Ranches and field sizes are small. One quarter mile from any given field is likely to be on the next ranch. When there is a REI anywhere on the ranch requiring oral and written posting, there will not be any Norman Rockwell scene like the slide show.
Many different labor providers are on the ranch and they operate on more than one ranch on most days. Labor contractors, harvesting companies, PCOs, PCAs and others show up at the field where they will work. All of these crews may need to hear all of the information listed in the rule for every field on the ranch subject to the warning, even if their work keeps them substantially confined to the area of one field. It could take some minutes to recite all this information, most of which has nothing to do with the tasks of the workers. Providing it is a logistical nightmare. Most growers have more than one ranch and deal with many independent businesses that have crews on the ranches.
I feel this is an undue burden on growers. They will be forced to go to great lengths to comply. The information provided will be of little more interest to the workers than the airline safety speech is to the seasoned flyer, who is thinking of something else while being told how to buckle and unbuckle the seatbelt. If the field is posted, it means "keep out." Why should somebody have to tell for example a lettuce harvesting crew of 40 persons about such things as "care of personal protective equipment required for early entry into treated fields, and the prevention, recognition and first aid for heat stress" related to another field a quarter of a mile away on the other side of the ranch? That crew is not going to leave the field they are working in. They really only need to know to not go into any fields other than those where directed and never go into a posted field.
What will suffice for "the location and description of the treated area?" Telling someone that lot 5a has been treated is not useful information unless that person understands where lot 5a is located. There are no signs on the lots. Could they point to "that broccoli field over there" and so identify it? There might be some confusion. Must a map be employed to show the workers where they are and where the treated field is? Can they say, "You see that field with all the signs posted on it that say KEEP OUT? That is the field I am telling you not to enter. It was treated with..."
Robert A. Roach
73507.555@compuserve.com
Robert, you have asked some excellent questions. I will watch and wait for some answers. But I have one for us all, and that is how is one to display pesticide record at the central location for 30 days after the re-entry interval has expired. I have a feeling the walls will be covered with paper. Keep the lines open.
Paul Baker
pbaker@ccit.arizona.edu
The Task Force on Training Materials recommended that EPA keep track of all EPA-approved and EPA-developed materials as well as translations into other languages. Is anyone at EPA following through? State Extension Services need updates on this subject. We need a printed list that we can hand out or mail out that identifies these materials and how to get copies. I have developed a listing for WPS-related materials and their availability, but so far it doesn't list any materials in languages other than Spanish. I'd be glad to send a copy of my publication to someone at EPA so they can see what information is needed in this kind of a reference document.
The Nov. 1993 listing of WPS training materials available from EPA listed titles, gave brief descriptions, and identified their sources. It identified materials as having been developed either by EPA or by states, but did not state whether any of the state-developed materials are approved by EPA. An updated version of the Training Materials list, dated June 1994, nicely separates the materials into categories: employers, handlers, workers, and general information.
The new version still, however, does not clarify whether any of the state-produced materials are EPA-approved and could thus be used in verifiable training. This is a big problem for those offering verifiable training and to others who want to reduce their liability. With regular updates and a little more info, this EPA listing could be more helpful.
Amy Brown
Pesticide Coordinator, Maryland
Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu
EPA recently put together a list of WPS materials, titled: "Worker Protection Standard: Materials Developed by EPA, States and Other Organizations." The item is available from: Ms. Allie Fields, US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (703) 305-7666. Allie would be very interested in receiving information about materials that are not on the EPA list. We are also working at getting this EPA list on the WPS-Forum, and hope to have it available soon.
The EPA manual "Protect Yourself from Pesticides-Guide for Agricultural Workers" has been translated into a variety of languages. EPA is working to get those translations typeset for publication, and would certainly be interested in hearing from organizations that might be able to help in this effort.
The WPS requires that information be presented in a manner that the workers and handlers can understand, such as through a translator. Where are employers going to find translators? There are a number of possibilities: churches and schools have strong links to the communities they serve, and may be able to suggest people who could act as translators. Medical facilities, police departments, and courts often need translators, and may be a source of information. Farmworker advocacy organizations may have bilingual staff that would be willing to assist in translating, or may know of others who could assist in translating. If there are any other suggestions out there, please post them.
The WPS sets requirements on the qualifications of the trainer: he or she must either be a certified applicator, be a currently designated trainer of RUP applicators, have attended an approved train-the-trainer program, or (for trainers of workers) have completed pesticide safety training for handlers. The translator must simply be able to translate what the trainer is saying and the questions that workers and handlers may ask.
Kay Rudolph
Worker Protection Program Manager, US EPA Region 9, San Francisco
rudolph.kay@epamail.epa.gov
I've recently completed an 8-page digest of US EPA's 100-page "Protect Yourself from Pesticides - Guide for Pesticide Handlers." I omitted each unit's "opening and review questions," to condense the material to a judicious amount that still embodies the essence of required safety information.
The trim UC Cooperative Extension "Handler Training Digest" is available for $1.50. Send check, payable to "County of Fresno," to Ag Personnel Management Program, 1720 S. Maple Ave., Fresno, CA 93702. Write "Digest" on the check margin. Also available, for $3.50, is US EPA's set of 8 brochures, a "guidance package" on personal protective equipment and heat stress. I've packaged it as a single booklet to make the material more accessible to WPS handler trainers.
Steve Sutter
UC Area Farm Advisor, Fresno
UC Statewide IPM Project 1994 Train-The-Trainer Programs
for Trainers of Pesticide Handlers and Agricultural Fieldworkers
1. Programs for Trainers of Pesticide Handlers/Fieldworkers (Training workshop hours: 8 am - 5 pm at all locations. Cost: $100.00 includes manual, other handouts, lunch, and refreshments. Space is limited to 40 participants at each location.)
September 20, 1994 - San Diego County
September 21, 1994 - Ventura County
September 23, 1994 - Monterey County
September 28, 1994 - Fresno County
[September 29, 1994 - Fresno County, if September 28 is sold out]
November 9, 1994 - Sacramento County
November 10, 1994 - Stanislaus County
November 15, 1994 - Napa County
November 17, 1994 - Butte County
2. Programs for Trainers of Fieldworkers (These programs will be conducted in Spanish. Training workshop hours: 8 am - 5 pm at all locations. Cost: $40.00 includes manual, other handouts, and refreshments. Space is limited to 25 participants at each location.)
October 4, 1994 - Woodland
October 6, 1994 - Napa
October 11, 1994 - Modesto
October 12, 1994 - Fresno
October 18, 1994 - Salinas
October 19, 1994 - Oxnard
October 20, 1994 - El Centro
Locations and dates subject to change. Participation in these train-the-trainer programs meets the requirements of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and US Environmental Protection Agency for trainers of pesticide handlers and agricultural fieldworkers under the Federal Worker Protection Act.
For further information or to receive registration materials, contact the UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, IPM Education and Publications Office at (916)752-7691.
Pat Marer
UC Integrated Pest Management Project
pmarer@ucipm.ucdavis.edu
NASDA Files Worker Protection Standard Petition with EPA
WASHINGTON - Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) today filed a petition for rulemaking with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting a revision to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides. "The petition was filed to correct serious problems with the Worker Protection Standard," said Texas Commissioner of Agriculture and Chairman of NASDA's Worker Protection Task Force, Rick Perry. "Making the changes suggested in the petition will meet one of the objectives Congress had when it delayed enforcement of the regulation."
NASDA suggested a number of major changes, including:
* Reducing the worker training grace period from 15 days to 5 days beginning January 1, 1995, and maintaining the 5-year retraining interval;
* Providing a reduced level of personal protective equipment (PPE) for low-contact activities - consistent with the level required by the law passed by Congress - to reduce the risk of worker heat stress;
* Establishing a phased restricted entry interval (REI) which will encourage the use of less toxic chemicals and reduce the potential for worker exposure;
* Providing an exception - consistent with the law passed by Congress - from the regulation for professional crop advisors;
* Reducing the period of time that decontamination facilities are required to the length of the REI - the time when the potential hazard exists; and
* Allowing for the development and distribution of posting and training in the language spoken in the local area.
"Protecting farmworkers and those who handle pesticides from unreasonable risks of pesticide exposure is important to agriculture and the modifications suggested by NASDA will help to assure farmworker protection," Perry continued. "Adopting the NASDA recommendations would be a major step in assuring American agriculture that we have a sound sensible policy in place to protect agricultural workers - a policy that can be easily interpreted by regulators and regulations that don't unnecessarily hinder a business' ability to operate and prosper."
Joining NASDA in the petition were the American Corn Growers Association, the Agricultural Retailers Association, the American Sod Producers, the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, DeBruyn Company, the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, Moore & Dorsey, Inc., the National Agricultural Aviation Association, the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the National Farmers Union, the National Grange, the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission, Inc., the Texas Cotton Ginners' Association, and the Washington Growers League.
NASDA is a nonprofit association of public officials representing the Commissioners, Secretaries and Directors of Agriculture in the fifty states and four territories.
Back to: Contents | LMD Main Page | APMP Home