A monthly report on pesticides and related environmental issues

Animated spider

Issue No. 134, April 1997

Open Forum:
In an attempt to promote free and open discussion of issues, The Agrichemical and Environmental News encourages letters and articles with differing views. To include an article, contact: Dr. Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671, ph: 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491,
E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu


Note: Based on instructions from WSU CAHE administration, information in this newsletter not originating from WSU contains a headline in the same color as the word "Note" at the beginning of this paragraph. This is t o help ensure that readers can readily identify material obtained from a source outside WSU.


In This Issue

News and Notes Minor Crops Book
to be Revised
Gorton Supports Prosser Washington State Ag Facts
Pesticide Container Collection State Pest Control Tour
Scheduled for July
Student Perception of Biotech Restricted Use Pesticides
WSU Plant Diagnostic Labs
Initiate Cost Recovery Program
Federal Issues
Available Reports State Issues
 WSCPR Nears End of Biennium  


Note: The animated spider graphic appearing at this site is used with permission. Copyright and use information may be obtained at http://www.inscot.demon.co.uk


Return to PICOL Home Page

News and Notes

Note: The AENews is accessible from the World Wide Web via http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu
Enter this address carefully, paying close attention to punctuation and spacing (no spaces between parts of the address). Some readers may experience difficulties accessing the site. These are believed to be related to the Internet and to on-line services , not the web site. If you are having a problem accessing the web page, please inform Dr. Catherine Daniels (ph: 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491, E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

Food and income

If take-home pay were spent on nothing else but food, the average American would have earned enough money to cover all food expenses for the entire year by February 10.

... From the Feb. 9, 1997, Daily Oklahoman.

WSDA does well in 1997 Legislature

The Washington State Department of Agriculture fared well in this year's Washington State Legislature, which finished business on time for the first time in exactly 40 years.

All but one WSDA funding requests were met. WSDA had historically received $364,000 from the federal government for international marketing programs. The money, which had gone to local development organizations, was cut from the federal budget. WSDA ha d requested state money to be used for hiring additional staff to take over the market development program. This was the only WSDA request not supported by the Legislature.

The Legislature provided full funding for the Pesticide Management Division and gave the Division an extra $500,000. Two-thirds of the new funds will come from a combination of increased registration and pesticide applicator licensing fees. One-third o f the funds will come from the toxics control account. The additional funds will cover operational costs of the Division, provide for the mandatory 3% cost of living increase, and allow hiring of four additional staff members.

Two employees will be added to the Registration Branch. The two employees will work on Section 18s, Section 24c registrations, and annual registration. The additional workers are being justified partly as a response to the expected increased workload g enerated by the Washington Commission on Pesticide Registration and the fallout of the Food Quality Protection Act.

Two employees will be added to the Compliance Branch. One employee will be based in an as- yet-undecided location in the Columbia Basin as an investigator. The second employee will serve in the Olympia office of WSDA and will provide routine outreach s upport to the regulated community.

Canola defined

"Canola" is defined as "any of several varieties of the rape plant having seeds that contain no more than 5% erucic acid and no more than 3 mg per gram of glucosinolate".

Rape plants have been an important source of edible oil for almost 4,000 years. Canola was developed after World War II by two Canadian scientists, Baldur Stefansson and Richard Downey.

"Canola" is variously explained as standing for "Canada oil, low acid", and as a blend of "Canada" and "colza".

"Canola" was originally a trademark in Canada, but is now a generic term. It is the only term now in use in that country; some sources do say that canola was "formerly called rape".

..Information found on the World Wide Web at http://www.scripps.edu/pub/dem-web/misrael/aufaq3.html
Another source of canola information is
http://www.canola-council. org/about.facts.htm

Return to Table of Contents


Gorton calls Prosser research center
his top agricultural priority

At a Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee hearing April 22, Sen. Slade Gorton (R - WA) questioned the USDA Acting Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics, Ms. Catherine E. Woteki, about the Clinton Administration's attempt to eli minate the Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center in Prosser, Wash. Last year, Gorton secured $2,499,800 for the center, which the Administration zeroed out in its FY98 budget request.

Gorton said he was perplexed and dismayed to discover that the Administration was planning the untimely death of the Agriculture Research Service, which has been conducting research at Prosser on a permanent basis since 1951. He said he has no intentio n of allowing the Administration to eliminate the Prosser Center.

When Gorton questioned her about why Prosser had been singled out, Ms. Woteki responded that Prosser did not meet the ARS established criteria for funding. She agreed to Senator Gorton's request to submit the criteria for the record to the subcommittee for members to review. Gorton assured her that he would scrutinize the criteria.

Gorton informed committee members that funding for the Prosser Research Center was his number one priority for the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. 

Return to Table of Contents


Plastic pesticide container collection dates, requirements

  1. Must be multiple rinsed, so that no residues remain.
  2. Must be clean and dry inside and out, with no apparent odor.
  3. Hard plastic lids and slip-on lids must be removed.
  4. Glue-on labels may remain.
  5. The majority of the foil seal must be removed from the spout. A small amount of foil remaining on the container rims is acceptable.
  6. Half pint, pint, quart, one and two-and-a half-gallon containers will be accepted whole.
  7. Five-gallon containers will be accepted whole, if the lids and bails are removed.
  8. Special arrangements must be made for 30-gallon and 55-gallon containers, by calling (509) 457-3850 prior to the collection.

**Containers that do not meet the above specifications cannot be accepted.**


Washington Pest Consultants Association
Container Collection Dates

Please put these dates on your calendars and help notify pesticide users of the program, so that containers do not become a waste issue. Taking time to clean and recycle these reusable products can save money and prove that the industry is responsible in its use of pesticides.

Date Site Sponsor (contact) Phone Comments
19 (8 a.m.-noon) WFS, Pomeroy WFS (John Massey) (509)924-9213  
20 (8 a.m.-noon) McGregor's, Walla Walla McGregor Co. (Gary Burt) (509)529-6787  
21 (8 a.m.-noon) Flat Top Ranch (Snake River) Flat Top Ranch

(Dave Hovde)

22 (9 a.m.-3 p.m.) Snipes Mtn. Transfer Station Yakima County (Mark Nedrow) (509)574-2457 Cardboard accepted
23 (8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.) Terrace Hts. Landfill Yakima County

(Mark Nedrow)

(509)574-2457 Cardboard accepted
5 (8 a.m.-noon) Wenatchee Tree Fruit Station NCWF&DA (Jeff Heats) Stemilt Growers (509)662-3602  
6 (8 a.m.-noon) Wilbur-Ellis, Quincy PNVA (Dale Martin) (509) 787-4433  
10 (8 a.m.-noon) Tom Dent Aviation, Moses Lake Municipal Airport CBCCA (Ron Turner) (509)787-3556  
11 (8 a.m.-noon) Wilbur-Ellis, Mattawa Wilbur-Ellis (Al Hilliker), Wolfkill Feed & Fertilizer (Rick Florine),

Othello Applicators (Steve George)





12 (8 a.m.-noon) Othello Airport LCBF&DA (Greg Jackson) (509)545-1865  
13 (8 a.m.-noon) Wilbur-Ellis, Eltopia Bleyhl Farm Service (Gary Herndon),

Simplot Soil Builders (John Cullen),

Monsanto (Ted Nullinger)






For more information about plastic pesticide container collection, contact:

Steve George, WPCA Recycling Coordinator,
31 High Valley View St.
Yakima, WA 98901

Return to Table of Contents


Student perception of biotech

This article was prepared by Lynn Fandrich, a Colorado State University graduating senior in Soil and Crop Science. The article was based on a class project that was presented at the Third Annual CSU All-University Undergraduate Research Symp osium. Ms. Fandrich not only won a unversity award, but in addition received the Outstanding Presentation Award from the College of Agriculture.

University students are often arbiters of the future in many ways, particularly of public opinion. And in many ways, a campus community can be an easily sampled microcosm of a larger, and more difficult to sample, world. The following information c omes from a report prepared by a Colorado State University student on student perception of biotechnology.

The influence of the public on decision-making processes in science cannot be underestimated. Public perceptions strongly influence the outcome and worth of biotechnological development. Understanding the differences in perceptions of biotechnology bet ween scientists and the public strengthens the coordination of research and education between the two groups. This understanding helps governments, universities and businesses anticipate and respond to public concerns in (1) research development and direc tion and (2) educational outreach. A questionnaire developed by the Colorado State University Office of Environmental and Pesticide Education assessed CSU students' attitudes and opinions related to perceptions of food production, health and environmental issues.

The differences in awareness of biotech between science and public groups imply each group has distinct differences in attitudes and opinions. Students were divided into two population groups, a "science community" and a "nonscience community", dependi ng on class and work experience.

The two population groups differed slightly in their sources of scientific information. Most notable was the presence of the media (TV & Radio, Magazines and Newspapers) ranking in the top five sources for both population groups. Cooperative Extens ion publications, University publications and on- campus seminars ranked at the bottom of the scale; each group received less than 5% of its information on ag biotech from these sources.

Students in the ag biotech-related classes were more aware of these practices and perceived biotech techniques as less risky than students not involved in related classes or work experience. Most of the science students (80%) agreed the benefits of bio tech outweigh the risks. A similar percentage agreed that those risks have been greatly exaggerated. Considerably fewer nonscience students (45%) agreed the benefits outweighed the risks, and they were more likely to perceive those risks as real. Many stu dents (>15% in both groups) said that they were unsure whether the risks had been exaggerated.

Concerns about possible risks to the environment are fairly polar, although the role of biotech in environmental preservation/degradation differed. When asked whether they would side with private industry or an environmental group in a scientific dispu te, greater than 60% of students in each population would side with an environmental group. However, greater than 80% of the students in the science community would agree that biotech is one solution to environmental concerns, whereas the nonscience commu nity was less supportive of this application.

The future of biotech is well supported by both science and nonscience student groups. Each population agreed modestly (>67%) that research into biotech should increase or stay the same. Few agreed (< 3%) research should be stopped altogether.


Return to Table of Contents


WSU Plant Diagnostic Labs initiate
cost recovery program

The Plant Diagnostic Laboratories (PDL) located at WSU-Prosser and WSU-Puyallup have initiated a cost recovery program. To date, the PDL services have been free. However, the level of service has suffered in recent years as budgets decreased.

Revenue generated from these fees is expected to support seasonal assistance, pay for operating supplies, and result in more comprehensive services to Washington growers and home horticulturists.

The fee schedule is as follows:

WSU Prosser Plant Diagnostic Lab


Basic diagnosis includes (1) visual and microscopic examination of plant samples or insect specimens, (2) a written diagnostic report sent by mail, and (3) appropriate literature

Home garden samples (walk-in clients only), each sample $10
Home garden samples (from Master Gardeners & Extension offices only), each sample

*Literature provided to home gardeners with diagnosis of free samples will be billed at current Cooperative Extension prices.
WSU research samples Free
All commercial samples, each sample $25
If special handling of samples is required for diagnosis, or is requested to confirm a diagnosis, an additional fee may be charged. (This is addition to the basic diagnostic fee described above.)
Special testing
Testing includes culturing of pathogenic organisms, serological assays (ELISA testing), and other special handling as determined by the Diagnostic Plant Pathologist. Clients will be notified prior to testing.


Special insect identification
In limited cases, it may be necessary to utilize other specialists to identify certain insect/spider groups, particularly at the species level. Clients will be notified prior to forwarding of specimens.


Eastern Washington:
Ellen M. Bentley, WSU-Prosser, 509-786-9271,

Western Washington:
Lenora Jones, WSU-Puyallup, 206-840-4582,



Return to Table of Contents


Available Reports

Return to Table of Contents


WSCPR nears end of biennium

The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration is nearing the end of its first biennium. The Legislature passed and Governor Locke is expected to sign a budget that funds another two years for the WSCPR. Since its first meeting in October, 1 995, the WSCPR has funded 80 projects aimed at developing pesticide registrations. Additionally, it has created a pesticide tracking system called the Pesticide Notification Network, helped coordinate an agricultural tour, is planning a second tour, and i n general has had a strong influence on the direction of Washington and Pacific Northwest pest control research.

A review of commission-supported projects provides interesting insights into the pest control needs of the area. The WSCPR has provided approximately $850,000 to support 80 projects. Pesticide user groups and other interested organizations have provide d approximately $875,000 in matching funds. Funds and in-kind services supporting the 80 projects total $1.725 million. Thirty projects are being conducted in association with the IR-4 Project. Additionally, the value of IR-4's contribution is between $10 ,000 and $60,000 for each project. WSU provides a significant contribution to this effort by providing a variety of services for the commission at no charge. The remaining 15% of WSCPR funds covers commission operating costs during the biennium, helps dev elop and implement the Pesticide Notification Network, supports the 1997 Washington Pest Control Tour, or has yet to be spent.

Weeds. Thirty-one projects involved weeds or vegetation management; total WSCPR and matching support is $491,643. Most projects deal with efficacy and phytotoxicity and help to show how an herbicide can be used. Ten projects are residue trials t hat should directly result in registrations once projects are completed. Two projects deal with control of the noxious weeds spartina and parrotfeather.

Insects. Thirty-eight projects involved insects or mites; total WSCPR and matching support is $853,480. About half of the projects deal with efficacy questions and learning how to use insecticides correctly before registration. Seventeen project s are residue trials that should directly result in registrations once the projects are complete. The total spent on insecticide-related projects is greater because more projects are either GLP residue trials or IPM-related. Both tend to be more expensive . Two projects are to control mites in honeybees.

Diseases. Thirteen projects involved diseases; total WSCPR and matching support is $284,531. Seven projects are residue trials that should directly result in registrations once projects are completed. That there are fewer projects dealing with d iseases relative to weeds and insects is not necessarily due to diseases being less of a problem, but is probably related to a lack of plant pathologists available to conduct research in Washington.

Aquaculture. Two projects involve aquaculture; total WSCPR and matching support is $54,000. The two projects involve an ongoing effort to develop a more environmentally compatible means to control ghost shrimp and mud shrimp in Pacific Coast oys ter beds.

Nematodes. A single project received funding of $30,109. The project involved developing a use pattern of metam-sodium to control nematodes in pea fields.

Regionality. At least 42 projects are clearly regional in nature, meaning the projects should or have the potential to result in a registration in at least one state other than Washington. Of the seven projects that support Section 18 emergency exemptions, four support Section 18s in Idaho and Oregon.

Return to Table of Contents


Minor crops book to be revised

The Washington State University Tri-Cities Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory (FEQL) is beginning data collection efforts that will result in a revision to the book Washington Minor Crops. We will soon be asking many agricultural o rganizations, as well as extension and research personnel, for assistance in reviewing the accuracy of crop data contained in the current book and bringing it up to date. This review assistance is needed to ensure that the collected data are of the highes t quality and of greatest use to the most people.

The original book, published in October 1995, contains crop descriptions, production information, and pest/pesticide information for most of Washington's minor crops. Although the main purpose for collecting these crop data was and is to allow evaluati on and prioritization of critical pest control needs, the original version of the book has been used by a variety of people and organizations for multiple purposes.

The new revision of this book will have an enlarged scope and is expected to be titled Washington Agriculture. The new book will not only contain information on Washington's minor crops, but also major crops and the nonfood/nonfeed commodities p roduced within the state. (Livestock will not be included in this revision.) For example, the new version will include data for bulb production, Christmas tree plantations, and the cut flower business. Also included will be information on greenhouse and n ursery operations. The specific types of information contained in the book will largely remain unchanged, with the exception of the section regarding critical pest control issues and the section listing sources; these sections will be expanded.

FEQL Pesticide Information Center (PIC) staff will soon begin mailing letters to agricultural organizations, extension staff, and researchers asking to have existing information updated and reviewed for accuracy. We will be distributing copies of speci fic crop sections from Washington Minor Crops and will specify review details. We anticipate sending each crop section to at least two reviewers, hopefully one agricultural organization and either a researcher or an extension staff member.

Again, the main purpose of this data collection effort is to provide information that enables regulators, researchers, and others interested in Washington agriculture to evaluate and prioritize critical pest control issues. We believe that the time req uired to help update and correct the crop/commodity data will be time well spent and are asking that you make time in your very busy spring/summer schedule to give the information a thorough review. The more accurate and complete the information gathered, the greater the benefit to Washington's agricultural industry.

The contact for this project is Jane Thomas with the PIC. She may be reached at (509) 372-7493 (phone), (509) 372-7460 (FAX), or jmthomas@tricity.wsu.edu (E-mail). Please also feel free to direct questions to Dr. Alan Schreiber at (509) 372-7324 or by E-mail to aschreib@tricity.wsu.edu.


Return to Table of Contents


Washington State Ag Facts

Agriculture is Washington state's #1 industry.

Washington state has 15.7 million acres in 36,000 farms.

About 25% of the state's agricultural commodities are sold in Washington, about 50% are sold in U.S. domestic markets, and about 25% are sold in international markets.

Washington farmers are productive.


Washington Leads the Nation in the Production

of Many Major Commodities

Washington ranks 1st in: Percent of U.S. production


Red Raspberries


Spearmint Oil


Dry Edible Peas


Wrinkled Seed Peas




Concord Grapes




Sweet Cherries






Carrots for processing


Sweet Corn for processing


Green Peas for processing


Washington ranks 2nd in:  
Peppermint Oil


Grapes, Niagara


Potatoes, fall




Grapes, all




Washington State Agriculture Top 40 Commodities*
1995 Value of Production

1. Apples $1,017,800,000 21. Onions $45,940,000
2. Wheat 733,478,000 22. Christmas Trees 42,000,000
3. Milk 687,934,000 23. Red Raspberries 35,182,000
4. Potatoes 553,823,000 24. Corn for Silage 34,344,000
5. Cattle and Calves 451,878,000 25. Carrots 33,172,000
6. Forest Products, Farm 328,000,000 26. Green Peas, Processed 30,246,000
7. Hay 326,147,000 27. Dry Edible Beans 20,024,000
8. Nursery/Greenhouse Products 245,000,000 28. Dry Edible Peas 18,573,000
9. All Pears 114,081,000 29. Lentils 16,905,000
10. Sweet Cherries 106,519,000 30. Mushrooms 15,724,000
11. Hops 99,290,000 31. Peaches 14,225,000
12. Eggs 93,241,000 32.Kentucky Bluegrass Seed 13,694,000
13. Grapes 73, 676,000 33. Alfalfa Seed 10,005,000
14. Sweet Corn, All 69,221,000 34. Cranberries 8,532,000
15. Chickens and Broilers 68,434,000 35. Wrinkled Seed Peas 7,770,000
16. Corn, grain 64,923,000 36. Apricots 6,982,000
17. Barley 59,508,000 37. Trout 6,368,000
18. Asparagus 58,659,000 38. Hogs and Pigs 6,106,000
19. Aquaculture 1/ 51,232,000 39. Strawberries 5,426,000
20. Mint Oil 50,688,000 40. Lettuce 4,586,000

Total Value of Production: $5.8 billion

*as compiled by the Washington Agricultural Statistics Service
1/ The Department of Fish and Wildlife annually calculates the value of aquaculture production. The 1995 data were not available at the time of publication; 1994 data carried forward. Aquaculture total excludes trout, which is listed separately.


For more information, contact:
Washington State Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Building, 2nd Floor
1111 Washington Street Southeast
P.O. Box 42560
Olympia, WA 98504-2560
(360) 902-1800
TDD# - (360) 902-1996


Return to Table of Contents


State pest control tour
scheduled for July

...Alan Schreiber

The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration (WSCPR) and WSU, as in 1996, are jointly hosting a summer state pest control tour.

The 1997 Washington Pest Control Tour is directed toward educating those individuals who make decisions influencing pesticide and pest control issues in Washington about unmet state pest control needs and pesticide issues. We plan to invite 65 individuals from the following sectors: mid level managers within pesticide companies that make pesticide registration decisions, state and federal regulatory officials, and state and federal legislative representatives. The tour this year will focus exclusively on western Washington issues.

The 1997 Washington Pest Control Tour will be held July 22, 23, and 24. The tour, to be headquartered at the SeaTac Red Lion, will begin with a 7 p.m., July 21 reception at the hotel.

The first day of the tour will focus on agricultural pest control needs and issues in Northwest Washington. Crops to be reviewed include strawberry, blueberry, raspberry, assorted vegetable seed, bulbs and cut flowers, peas, cucumbers and some additional crops, yet to be selected. Lunch will be at the Washington Bulb Company. Dinner and wine tasting will be at the Chateau St. Michelle Winery in Woodinville.

The second day of the tour will focus on forestry, Christmas tree, and right-of-way pest control needs and issues and will take place in the forested region south of Olympia. The morning tour will include stops at a Christmas tree farm and at a right-of-w ay location. The afternoon will be dedicated to forestry issues. Two stops will include nursery/seed orchard and vegetation management. The final stop will be at the Weyerhaeuser Learning Center on Mt. St. Helens. While at the Learning Center, participant s will be taken on a helicopter tour of the forested areas around Mt. St. Helen.

The third day of the tour will focus on urban pest control needs and issues and will take place in the area around and south of SeaTac. The morning tour will cover outdoor ornamentals and nursery/landscape issues. The afternoon will cover structural pest control and golf courses.

At this time, we plan to invite 40 pesticide company representatives and 25 state and federal regulatory and legislative representatives. We plan to send invitations at the beginning of April. At this time, we are still developing a budget; because the to ur is almost 50% larger than the 1996 tour and is on the West Side, it will be substantially more expensive. I hope to have much of the cost covered by registration fees and by sponsors. Any amount not covered by registration fees or sponsors will be paid for by the WSCPR.


Tentative tour itinerary


July 21 - "The R and R Event" - Registration and reception
at SeaTac Red Lion


July 22 -- 7 a.m. - head for the beautiful Skagit Valley and tour
the diverse and important agriculture of northwest Washington.


July 23 -- 7 a.m. head for central Washington, south of Olympia


July 24 - Urban Pest Control


Return to Table of Contents


Restricted Use Pesticides

Pesticide Classifications
In efforts to control distribution and use of the country's more hazardous pesticides, the EPA devised a classification system for pesticides. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, pesticide registration and classification procedu res, pest control products may be unclassified, classified as general use, or classified as restricted use pesticides (RUPs). The following is a discussion of various aspects of the state and federal RUP classification process and associated requirements.

Pesticide labels for RUPs must state that the pesticide is a restricted use product. Several specific handling and record keeping requirements also come into effect. First, the RUP classification designates who is allowed to apply these products. Under FI FRA, only certified applicators, private applicators, or commercial applicators may apply RUPs. Interestingly, maintenance applicators are, by definition, not authorized to handle RUPs. Further, if the restricted use classification is due to dermal or inh alation toxicity hazards, the pesticide must be either applied by or applied under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. However, if the restricted use classification is due to environmental concerns, EPA may also issue alternate application r estrictions.

The RUP classification also carries with it restrictions about who can purchase these pesticides. RUPs must be sold to certified applicators only; however, they may be sold to uncertified individuals if the pesticide is for use by a certified applicator.

In addition to specifying who may purchase and apply RUPs, the regulations also stipulate certain record keeping requirements for both applicators and for dealers who handle RUPs.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) may also designate a chemical as a restricted use pesticide in Washington. A product may be classified as a general use pesticide by EPA but can be classified in Washington as an RUP. Products falling into this category are considered state RUPs. Generally, WSDA will classify a pesticide as a state RUP due to concerns about toxicity, groundwater contamination, or drift. Note that in the case where an RUP classification is applied at the state level, th e RUP status will not be reflected on the product label.

Not only can a pesticide be classified differently between state and federal regulators, but EPA may also register a pesticide as both general and restricted use. If this is the case, EPA requires that the packaging and labeling for each use be clearly di stinguishable from each other.

The Federal Classification Process
The first opportunity for classifying a pesticide as general use or restricted use comes during the registration process. Here, the applicant specifies whether the pesticide is to be registered for general or restricted use. As part of the registration pr ocess, EPA may decide that a product should be restricted use rather than general use if it meets certain criteria. Specifically, EPA will classify a pesticide as an RUP if, when applied per label directions or in accordance with a commonly held and wides pread practice, it may cause adverse effects to the environment or injury to the applicator.

Pesticides can be reclassified from general to restricted use. To do this, EPA must first notify the registrant 45 days in advance of the reclassification and must publish the proposed action in the Federal Register. EPA also accepts a registrant's pet ition to change a classification from restricted use to general use, if the registrant can show that general use will not cause "unreasonable adverse effects to the environment." The EPA must respond to any such petition within 60 days.

EPA currently lists 162 pesticides as RUPs. The current list is provided in Table 3. The following information about federal restricted use pesticides can be found on the Internet at the http:// www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/RestProd/index.html

From this site interested parties can access a summary report listing chemicals added to the RUP list within the last six months. In addition, a comprehensive RUP list, including detailed chemical information, is also available from this site.

The State Classification Process
As stated above, WSDA may designate a federal general use pesticide as a state RUP. These decisions are generally based on toxicity, groundwater, or drift concerns. The pesticides that WSDA has designated as RUPs based on toxicity are listed below in Table 1.


Table 1. State RUPs Classified Due to Human or Animal Toxicity.

Chemical Common Name

DiNitro-O-Sec Butyl Phenol (DNOSBP)* Hydrogen Cyanide (Hydrocyanic acid) (HCN)*
Endothall (20% and above)* Methyl Bromide
Ethion (26% and above) Strychnine and its salts* (Strychnine Alkaloid 1.1% and above)
Guthion (16% and above)  

* Indicates pesticides which are only classified as restricted use by WSDA.
All others are also listed as restricted use by the EPA.



Next, WSDA may designate pesticides as RUPs because of concerns that the chemicals are easily transported into groundwater. A list of these chemicals is provided in Table 2.


Table 2. State RUPs Classified Due to Concern for Groundwater Protection.

Chemical Common Name

Alachlor Carbofuran Disulfoton Metolachlor* Prometon*
Aldicarb Cyanazine* Diuron* Metribuzin* Simazine
Atrazine DCPA* Heptachlor* Oxamyl Tebuthiuron*
Bromacil* 1,3-dichloropropene Hexazinone* Picloram

* Indicates pesticides which are only classified as restricted use by WSDA.
All others are also listed as restricted use by the EPA.



Due to drift concerns, WSDA classifies all dry formulations and liquid formulations of 2,4-D greater than one gallon as state restricted use pesticides, when these products are distributed in eastern Washington. When labeled for consumer use, WSDA exem pts amine formulations, products labeled for home and garden use, and 1-gallon containers with less than 15% of the restricted use herbicide.

Even though some products may contain ingredients listed in Table 2 or 2,4-D, they are not always state RUPs. WSDA does not classify pet, home and garden, industrial fluid, or those products registered for use within wholly enclosed structures (with fl oors) as RUPs, as long as these products are not classified as RUPs by EPA.

Finally, WSDA designates as state RUPs any pesticide formulations labeled for application onto or into water. WSDA does provide some exceptions (e.g. chemicals used in swimming pools and aquariums), providing that these pesticides are not classified by EPA as RUPs.


Table 3. List of EPA Restricted Use Pesticides

(E)-Mevinphos Chlorpyrifos Fenitrothion Phostebupirim
(Z)-Mevinphos Chromic acid Fenpropathrin Picloram
Acetamide Clofentezine Fensulfothion Picloram, isooctyl ester
Acetic acid Coal tar Fenthion Picloram, potassium salt
Acetochlor Coal tar creosote Fenvalerate Picloram, triisopropanolami
Acrolein Copper oxychloride Flucythrinate Piperonyl butoxide
Acrylonitrile Coumaphos Fluoroacetamide Potassium pentachlorophenate
Alachlor Creosote Fluvalinate Profenofos
Aldicarb Creosote oil Fonofos Pronamide
Allyl alcohol Cube resins other than rote Hydrocyanic acid Propanoic acid
Alpha-chlorohydrin Cupric oxide Hydrogen cyanamide Propetamphos
Aluminum phosphide Cuprous oxide Imazaquin Pyrethrins
Amitraz Cyanazine Isazofos Resmethrin
Amitrole Cycloheximide Isofenphos Rotenone
Arsenic acid Cyfluthrin Lambda-cyhalothrin S-Fenvalerate
Arsenic pentoxide Cyhalothrin Lindane Simazine
Atrazine Cypermethrin Magnesium phosphide Sodium arsenate
Avermectin DBCP Methamidophos Sodium cyanide
Avitrol Deltamethrin Methidathion Sodium dichromate
Azinphos-methyl Dimeton Methiocarb Sodium fluoroacetate
Bendiocarb Diallate Methomyl Sodium hydroxide
Benzoic acid Diazinon Methyl bromide Sodium methyldithiocarbamate
Bifenthrin Dichloropropene Methyl isothiocyanate Sodium pyroarsenate
Bis (tributyltin) oxide Diclofop-methyl Methyl parathion Starlicide
Brodifacoum Dicrotophos Metolachlor Strychnine
Butylate Diflubenzuron Mevinphos Sulfotep
Cadmium chloride Dioxathion Monocrotophos Sulfuric acid
Calcium cyanide Diphacinone Niclosamide Sulfuryl fluoride
Carbofuran Disulfoton Nicotine Sulprofos
Carbon dioxide Dodemorph Nitrogen, liquid Tefluthrin
Carbon tetrachloride Endrin Oxamyl TEPP
Chlordane EPN Oxydemeton methyl Terbufos
Chlordane, technical EPTC Paraquat Tergitol
Chlordimeform Ethion Pentachlorophenol TFM
Chlorfenvinphos Ethoprop Pentachlorophenol, sodium S Toxaphene
Chlorobenzilate Ethyl parathion Permethrin Tralomethrin
Chlorophacinone Ethylene dibromide Phorate Tributyltin fluoride
Chloropicrin Ethylene dichloride Phosacetim Tributyltin methacrylate
Chlorothalonil Fenamiphos Phosalone Trifluralin
Chlorothoxyfos Fenbutatin-oxide Phosphamidon Triisopropranolamine
Triphenyltin hydroxide
Zinc phosphide


Return to Table of Contents


Federal Issues


The following tolerances were granted by EPA since the last report (March 1997). These data do not mean that labels have been registered for these uses. These pesticides must not be used until labels are registered with EPA or a state department of agr iculture.


A = adjuvant FA = feed additive I = insecticide
D = desiccant FM = fumigant IN = inert
D/H = desiccant, herbicide G = growth regulator N = nematicide
F = fungicide H = herbicide P = pheromone
R=rodenticide V = vertebrate repellent  


Chemical Petitioner Tolerance Commodity
(I) Avermectin and
its delta 8,9-
Merck 0.015(a) Cattle, fat
0.02(a) Cattle, mbyp, meat
0.2(a) Hops, dried
0.005(a) Milk, potatoes
(H) Clopyralid Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts 2(b) Cranberries
(H) Sulfentrazone FMC 0.05 Soybean seed
0.15 Cereal grains (excluding sweet corn), bran
0.2 Cereal grains (excluding sweet corn), forage
0.1 Cereal grains (excluding sweet corn), grain
0.2 Cereal grains (excluding sweet corn), hay
0.3 Cereal grains (excluding sweet corn), hulls
0.1 Cereal grains (excluding sweet corn), stover
0.6 Cereal grains (excluding sweet corn), straw
(G) Clofencet Monsanto 0.04 Cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, sheep; fat
10 Cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep; kidney
0.5 Cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep; mbyp (except kidney)
0.15 Cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, sheep; meat
0.2 Poultry, mbyp
1 Eggs
0.02 Milk
10 Wheat, forage
250 Wheat, grain
40 Wheat, hay
50 Wheat, straw
4 Cereal grains group (except rice, wild rice, sweet corn and wheat), forage
20 Cereal grains group (except rice, wild rice, sweet corn and wheat), grain
15 Cereal grains group (except rice, wild rice, sweet corn and wheat), hay
1 Cereal grains group (except rice, wild rice, sweet corn and wheat), stover (fodder)
4 Cereal grains group (except rice, wild rice, sweet corn and wheat), straw
30 Soybeans
10 Soybeans; forage, hay

(a) Time limited tolerance expires September 1st, 1999
(b) Time limited tolerance expires July 31st, 1998


Tolerance corrections

 EPA is correcting the tolerance for residues of glufosinate ammonium on corn, field and forage as stated in the petition submitted by AgrEvo USA Co. to read 4 ppm with expiration on July 13, 1999.

Emergency Exemptions (Section 18)

 Specific exemptions have been granted for the following uses:

Reregistration Notifications

Registered uses supported by FMC which are expected to be reregistered:
alfalfa, artichokes (SLN in CA), bananas, barley, canola (SLN in ID, WA), coffee (SLN in PR), corn (field, pop, sweet), cotton, cranberries, cucumbers, flax (SLN in ND), oats, ornamentals, melons, peppers (SLN in AZ, TX), pine (forestry), plantain, potato es, pumpkins, rapeseed (SLN in MN, ND), rice, sorghum, soybeans, spinach (SLN in WA), squash, sugar beets (SLN in ID, NE, OR, TX), sugarcane, sunflowers, tobacco, and wheat.

Registered uses unsupported and expected to be canceled: grapes and strawberries. Unless this request for deletion is withdrawn from the USEPA, these uses will be effectively withdrawn on 5/14/97. FMC is open to discussions about continuation of carbofuran use on grapes and strawberries, but must have reliable evidence that demonstrates further use will not pose unreasonable risk to bird species. If deleted, the USEPA authorizes FMC Corporation to sell and distribute carbofuran for use on grapes and strawberries until 5/14/98. Growers and distributors may use existing stocks until they are depleted. For registration information contact: Ms. Niloufar Nazmi-Glosson, EPA, Special Review Branch, Phone 703-308-8028, Fax 703-308-804, nazmi-glosson.niloufar@epamail.gov

Registered uses supported by Bayer which are expected to be reregistered:
apples, Christmas trees, grapes, ornamentals (herbaceous & woody), pears, pineapples, pines (seeds and seedlings), *raspberries, and turf.
* IR-4 is providing support for this registered use.

Registered uses unsupported and expected to be canceled: cucurbits, grasses (grown for seed), sugar beets, and wheat. Triadimefon products will continue to be produced and sold with the unsupported uses on their labels at least until this summer . Products with those uses on them can continue to be sold and used.

For additional information contact:

Ms. Tammy Sabbert
Bayer Agricultural Division
Phone 816-242-2468
Fax 816-242-2753
Mr. Mel Tolliver
Bayer Agricultural Division
Phone 816-242-2150
Fax 816-242-2738


Return to Table of Contents

State Issues

Special Local Needs (Section 24c)

The Washington State Department of Agriculture has granted label registration to the following pesticide uses under the provision of Section 24(c) amended FIFRA.

24 (c) cancellations

The following Washington Special Local Need (SLN) registration has been voluntarily canceled by the registering company:

 Return to Table of Contents


Contributors to the Agrichemical and Environmental News:

Alan Schreiber, Allan Felsot, Catherine Daniels, Mark Antone, Eric Bechtel

Contributions, comments and subscription inquiries may be directed to: Dr. Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671, ph: 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491, E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

This page has been accessed times since May 5, 1997.