Issue No. 137, July 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 to help ensure that readers can readily identify material obtained from a source outside WSU.

In This Issue

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

Postcards to request continued receipt of the newsletter will be sent in September to all Agrichemical and Environmental News subscribers.

Zeneca Inc. announced June 25 that it has reached agreement with 48 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to settle a dispute concerning the legality of Zeneca Ag Product's stewardship bonus agreements, which have been discontinued. Under the agreement, Zeneca will contribute $2.7 million, plus costs, to the group of settling states. Zeneca has explicitly denied wrongdoing and has settled with the states without admitting liability.

The settlement comes more than a year and a half after the conclusion of a class action lawsuit brought against Zeneca and two of its distributors. Allegations in that suit were similar to those in the recent dispute. In the prior suit, a federal district court in Florida agreed with Zeneca that the class action suit could not go forward.

Contrary to popular mythology, almost no spiders pose a threat to humans; mechanically, most spiders' mouth parts simply cannot penetrate human skin. But they do eat other bugs. As the curator of arachnids at the University of Washington's Burke Museum comments, "...no brown recluse spiders west of the Great Planes - never a brown recluse bite in Washington." And the black widow is indigenous in only a tiny part of western Washington. Instead, we have the hobo spider - a plain brown creature - that has an (almost) painless bite that may cause blistering, ulceration and eschar formation, but usually no systemic symptoms.

Two or three other spiders may do some minor-league biting, with transient discomfort at most. Reassure rather than admit to a hospital - and think twice before giving anti-venom for black widows. Even if it really is a black widow bite - and most actually are not - you can manage many symptomatic patients quickly with opiates. Remember: more than 8,000 black widow bites have been reported nationwide during the past four years without a single death. There has, however, been plenty of serum sickness.

The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriation Subcommittee has recommended a budget of $9.99 million in the 1998 USDA budget to support the IR-4 minor use program. This is an increase of $4.28 million more than the 1997 budget. The full House Appropriation Committee will develop a more final budget in July, followed by a Senate markup of the budget at a later date. It is unclear whether this proposed increase in support for IR-4 will carry through to the final budget.

Bayer Corp. and Valent USA, sole U.S. registrants of the insecticide methamidophos, have requested an EPA amendment to terminate methamidophos use on all crops except cotton and potatoes, and to cancel methamidophos 24 (c) food-use registrations not labeled for tomatoes only.

EPA issued a cancellation request notice in the July 2 Federal Register. After assessing occupational risk , EPA determined last year that risk to agricultural workers from short and intermediate exposures to the pesticide exceeded the agency's level of concern, the notice said.

EPA met with Bayer and Valent last August to present the agency's concerns about worker exposures and to discuss voluntary measures to reduce risk. The registrants then proposed the use terminations and product cancellations announced in the notice. The companies also proposed measures such as additional spray drift language, a phase-in of closed mixing and loading systems, and participation in industry wide education efforts, EPA said.

EPA must receive comments by August 1. Unless the agency publishes a subsequent Federal Register notice modifying this notice, the terminations and product cancellations will be effective on December 29, EPA said. Comments may be submitted to EPA's Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

A pesticide applicator has received the longest-ever federal prison sentence for an environmental crime, after he illegally sprayed an agricultural pesti-cide in at least 48 homes. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi sentenced two applicators on July 7. Both men were convicted of illegally spraying methyl parathion indoors and illegal distribution of the pesticide. Paul Walls was sentenced to prison for six years and six months. Dock Eatman was sentenced to prison for five years and three months. EPA estimated cleanup costs at more than $70 million. Cleanup primarily will be paid for by the federal Superfund trust fund. U.S. Attorney Brad Pigott said Walls' sentence is the longest ever for an "exclusively environmental" crime.

Return to Table of Contents

 Officially Unofficial

...Alan Schreiber

• The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. sent a letter on June 19 to Gary Moore, Director of Labor and Industries, asking L and I to make mandatory medical monitoring of pesticide mixers, loaders and applicators in the state of Washington. Currently, L and I has a non-mandatory program using cholinesterase testing. The program is supposed to determine whether workers have been exposed to unreasonable levels of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. The Sierra Club stated that, unless L and I publishes a notice of intent to revise the current (non-mandatory) rule to make medical monitoring mandatory within 60 days, it will proceed with litigation.
• The Teamster's Union has hired a Washington consulting group to examine the impact of pesticides on packing house workers. (The union is in the process of attempting to organize packing house workers into a union.) The consultants have requested information from the Washington State Department of Health on pesticide incidents occurring in packing houses. A Department of Health official stated that the number of reported incidents during the past several years is relatively small, most in pear packing facilities. Of these incidents, several were not related to pesticides. The rest were related to dermal irritations.
• The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration held its bimonthly meeting on July 17 at the WSU Tri-Cities Campus. Commissioners approved funding for two projects to develop alternatives for control of spartina, an aquatic weed. Commissioners also discussed final preparations for the 1997 Washington Pest Control Tour scheduled for July 22, 23 and 24. The tour is expected to have 80, 70 and 60 attendees for each day, respectively. The first day of the tour will focus on agriculture in northwest Washington, the second day will focus on natural resource and forestry issues in southwest Washington, and the third day will focus on urban pest control issues in the Puget Sound area.

The next meeting of the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration is scheduled for September 9 at the Summit Inn at Snoqualmie Pass. The meeting, which is open to the public, is to begin at 10 a.m. 

Return to Table of Contents

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.

For more information about plastic pesticide container collection, contact:

Steve George, WPCA Recycling Coordinator,

31 High Valley View St. Yakima, WA 98901

(509) 457-3850 or point your

World Wide Web browser to

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~Ramsay/wpca.html

 Return to Table of Contents

The provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 require EPA to reassess all pesticide tolerances within 10 years of passage of the act. During the first phase of tolerance reassessment, EPA plans to review tolerances of the organophosphate, carbamate and B-1/B-2 carcinogen pesticides. During these reviews, EPA is required to consider risk from all sources of pesticide exposure and cumulative risk from pesticides with common modes of toxicity. In addition, the agency can place an additional 10-fold safety factor in the risk calculations to further protect the diets of infants and children.

IR-4 has developed the following list of minor uses that will be subject to the first round of tolerance reassessment. Crops included are grown on fewer than 300,000 acres. The list excludes minor uses on the major crops. In addition, the list excludes seed treatment use patterns or uses that do not require a pesticide tolerance.

It is likely that some of these uses will be lost during tolerance reassessment. At this point, there is no way to adequately predict which exact uses will no longer be available. Thus, all these uses must be considered at risk of no longer being available for agriculture. Because of the unknown future, it would be prudent to consider alternative pest control tools as potential replacements for these at-risk minor uses.

 Return to Table of Contents

• Pesticides and Their Proper Storage. PPP-26. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, IN 47907.
• Pesticides and Applicator Certification. PPP-25. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, IN 47907.
• Pesticides and Food Safety. PPP-22. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, IN 47907.
• Biologic & Economic Assessment of the Impact of Pesticide Use on Asparagus. MISC0193. NAPIAP Report #2-CA-97. Washington State University Cooperative Extension.

Return to Table of Contents

Oregon State University and the USEPA, in conjunction with the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network are sponsoring the National Antimicrobial Information Network, a toll-free telephone service that provides antimicrobial information to callers in the United States, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

From 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific time, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, the service provides information about antimicrobial products, toxicology and environmental chemistry. It can help callers interpret product labels and permitted uses, refer callers concerning human or animal injury and laboratory analyses, supply general information about regulations and lists of products registered with EPA, provide information about safety, health and environmental effects, and report to EPA information about lack of product efficacy. The network may be contacted at 1-800-447-6349, 1-541-737-0761 (fax), http://ace.orst.edu/info/nain/ or NAIN, Oregon State University, 333 Weniger Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-6502.

Return to Table of Contents

Commentary on WSDA

WSDA's Pesticide Management Division (PMD), particularly in its ability to investigate pesticide-related complaints, has come under unprecedented criticism. This unfavorable attention has been widely reported by the state press (Seattle PI, Tri-City Herald and Capitol Press among many others.)

EPA Region 10 representatives believe there to be sufficient enough substance to the claims to warrant their taking a more in-depth annual review of the WSDA Compliance Branch and its ability to investigate pesticide claims. For whatever reason (s), there has been virtually no response to the unusually public charges being levied against Washington's lead pesticide agency.

Using a variety of sources, I have developed some background information and facts related to the WSDA's regulation of pesticides. It is my hope that this information and the associated commentary will be useful to anyone interested in state regulation of pesticides and good public policy.

The WSDA's Pesticide Management Division has two primary goals: to protect the people and environment of Washington by ensuring the safe and legal use of pesticides and to serve pesticide users by providing needed tools. The PMD is also involved in implementing Worker Protection Standards, the state Groundwater Management Plans and the highly successful Pesticide Waste Disposal Program. To help it meet its legislatively mandated responsibilities, the PMD had a staff of 47 in 1992. Between 1992 and 1997, however, every facet of the PMD experienced an increase in workload. The division has also lost personnel. In 1997, the PMD has the equivalent of 34.5 employees; there are 12.5 fewer individuals than five years earlier. The PMD has three branches: Registration with 4.5 people, Compliance with 18 people, and Program Development with 11.5 people.

The Compliance Branch investigates complaints of pesticide misuse, inspects manufacturing and distribution facilities and licensed applicators, and provides technical assistance to aid voluntary compliance with pesticide laws. To better assist pesticide users, the staff has been decentralized. Three staff members are in Olympia, one is in Mt. Vernon, three are in Yakima, two are in Spokane, and two are in Wenatchee.

The Program Development Branch licenses approximately 25,000 applicators, dealers and consultants annually, administers a continuing education program, conducts a farmworker education program for Spanish speaking farmers/farmworkers, and carries out other public safety and environmental protection activities, such as development of groundwater protection plans. The Program Development Branch also manages the state Waste Pesticide Program.

The Registration Services Branch registers approximately 8,500 pesticides annually, evaluates and submits Section 18s to EPA, evaluates, approves or denies requests for Section 24 (c) registrations, and provides label review and interpretation for various state and federal agencies, organizations and individuals.

The Compliance Branch has the thankless job of enforcing pesticide laws and regulations and investigating pesticide-related complaints. Compliance staffers serve as state pesticide cops and also provide assistance on how to comply with increasingly complex state and federal pesticide regulations. When people believe that they or the environment have been harmed by the use of pesticides, it can be a highly charged, emotional situation. An investigator has to walk on eggshells, have the wisdom of Solomon, the insight of my mother, and the sensitivity of Alan Alda to complete an investigation. As objective and quantifiable as the investigators try to be, there comes a time in most investigations that an investigator has to use some professional and personal judgment.

Having to use judgment leaves an investigator open to second guessing by anyone at a later time having a different viewpoint. I would not want to be a WSDA Compliance investigator, investigating dozens of cases a year, year after year, and then being in a position where someone uninvolved in these investigations reviews my cases, sometimes years later.

Something quite important to keep in mind is that a major effort of every compliance staffer is to help people comply with pesticide laws and regulations. I know most of the investigators personally and professionally. They are individuals who are sincere in their attempts to make Washington a safer place to live and work, while at the same time ensuring that pesticides are used safely and responsibly.

There are some facts from the 1997 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Annual Report published by the Washington Department of Health that I believe to be quite insightful in regards to the bottom line on compliance with pesticide regulations in Washington. For the past five years, the number of pesticide-related complaints to WSDA has decreased. The number of violations has decreased every year. Total violations as a percentage of the total number of complaints have also decreased every year (see Table 1). The Washington Department of Health reports a similar, but less dramatic trend.

A second and similar trend related to pesticide drift complaints and violations was also recently presented in the 1997 PIRT Report (see Table 2).

The reasons for these declines are numerous and not easily explained. One explanation often mentioned for these trends is the enforcement and technical assistance provided to state pesticide users by WSDA.

The Program Development Branch is the branch with which I am least familiar. I know that Washington state has one of the more stringent pesticide certification testing programs in the country. One of the unfortunate aspects of having high licensing standards is that non-English speaking pesticide users often have difficulty passing the licensing exam. WSDA has responded to this by developing a strong Spanish language-training program. Tracking certification credits and licenses for 25,000 individuals is an impressive task that branch personnel somehow manage to accomplish.

The Registration Branch is the branch with which I am the most familiar. If there were ever an overworked group of individuals, the RB staff is it. By early July of 1997, the RB had reviewed 28 Section 18s, a record number for the state. Of the first 21 Section 18s, Washington declared seven crisis exemptions, another record number. Usually, crisis exemptions total only one or two per year. The higher-than-ever number of crisis exemptions is due to the recent passage of the Food Quality Protection Act. WSDA has, by issuing crisis exemptions in support of Washington agriculture, on numerous occasions put its professional neck on the line with EPA. By early July, WSDA had issued 36 Section 24 (c) registrations. (While not a record, at this pace the number of 24 (c) registrations will be much greater than the annual average.) WSDA, in cooperation with other private and public entities has made the state a national leader in obtaining safer and more effective pesticides to protect Washington's people, environment and agriculture.

Washington state has one of the most diverse agricultural economies in the country. The size and diversity of our agriculture require the use of a wide variety of pesticides. This results in an extremely complex pesticide industry that is not easy to regulate. In the November issue of the AENews, I compared Washington's Pesticide Management Division budget to those of the other seven leading minor crop states in the U.S. Only Oregon has a smaller program (California's budget is 20 times larger). Washington's overall pesticide regulatory budget was two-thirds smaller than the national average for such budgets.

When one considers the WSDA and regulation of pesticides, one should keep in mind the size and complexity of the state's agriculture, the number of pesticides involved, the amount of resources WSDA has to work with, and what the department is accomplishing.

Return to Table of Contents

Washington Friends of Farms and Forests has been through numerous changes during the past year. I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring you up to date about where we are and where we're going.

The merger between Friends and the Agri-Business Coalition was finalized during 1996. The fully integrated board of directors is functioning smoothly as a cohesive unit. The unique blend of producers, applicators and manufacturers gives Friends a broad perspective on issues and more resources to draw from.

On May 1, 1997, I officially became the new executive director of Friends. I am very excited about this opportunity and look forward to getting to know those members I have not yet had the chance to meet.

I grew up on a farm in western Washington and received both my bachelor's and master's degrees from Washington State University. I worked as a county extension agent for Utah State University and the University of Arizona.

I served as executive director of the Washington Association of Animal Welfare for three years. This was a coalition of agricultural organizations that helped producers prepare for, and defend against, accusations of animal rights extremists.

Prior to accepting this position with Friends, I expanded my lobbying skills as a legislative liaison for the Washington State Grange. I also have some experience in commercial vegetable production.

My personal goals for the organization include open lines of communication with each and every member, organization and business that shares our vision. I hope to see the organization grow in breadth and depth and to expand on its already solid reputation as a credible resource for pesticide and related environmental issues.

We had a particularly effective legislative session with the passage of the IPM bill and the pesticide registration and fee bill. The IPM bill protects chemicals as an equal tool for consideration in pest management decisions. The fee bill provided funding for the Washington State Department of Agriculture to fully operate its pesticide registration, certification and licensing programs.

We are continuing to cooperate with Oregon State University in the production of Pesticide Fact Sheets. Fact Sheets are now available for five different chemicals for right-of-way vegetation management and eight chemicals for forestry use. Several more are in the works.

The fact sheets are designed to assist chemical users in communicating with neighbors and others who may have concerns about applications. They provide factual information about chemicals and resources to consult for further information.

On-going activities include responding to inaccurate news and magazine articles with factual information, monitoring regulatory action, and communicating members' concerns to regulators. Plans for the near future include educational seminars on application technology and drift management, endocrine disruptors and multiple chemical sensitivity. We plan several publications providing background information about current pesticide issues for media and decision-makers.

I look forward to meeting more of you during the coming months, hearing your concerns about issues, and gathering your ideas for how we can work together for the economic and environmental well being of our state.

Return to Table of Contents

Washington Friends of Farms and Forests on September 3, 1997, will host Ambassador Training, courtesy of the American Crop Protection Association. The Ambassador program is designed to train crop protection professionals and others to communicate with consumers about the safety of food production.

Participants will learn to prepare concise, effective messages and organize them into tailored presentations. Participants will also learn to effectively answer questions about pesticides. The training will be held in Federal Way from 1-5 p.m. For more information, call 360-705-2040. 

Return to Table of Contents

The Washington State Department of Health recently released the 1996 Annual Report of the Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel. As in past years, this report is a gold mine of information on pesticide-related complaints in the state of Washington. The information is a compilation and analysis of investigations conducted by the departments of Agriculture, Health, and Labor and Industries.

In 1995, the three agencies submitting incident data for the PIRT report investigated 648 alleged pesticide incidents. Because more than one agency may investigate an incident, the number of investigations is greater than the number of incidents. For example, WSDA independently investigated 223 incidents, DOH investigated 25 incidents, and L&I investigated 11 incidents. Additionally, the Washington Poison Control Center in 1995 received 3,375 pesticide-related calls.

After completing an investigation, DOH makes a determination regarding the relationship between an illness and the likelihood it is related to pesticides. In 1995, DOH investigated 399 incidents involving 503 people. Sixty-four percent of the reports were from eastern Washington. Of the 399 incidents, 85 involved residential activity, 201 involved agricultural activity, 87 involved commercial/industrial activity, and 26 were listed as other. Relationship of symptoms to pesticide exposure was rated as 38 definite, 46 probable, 132 possible, 134 unlikely, 48 unknown, 77 unrelated, and 28 asymptomatic. Of the 14 incidents that involved hospitalizations, one was related to inadvertent exposure to pesticides, five were unlikely related to pesticides, and four were intentional ingestions of pesticides. In four cases, it was unknown whether pesticides were involved. Of 53 incidents involving children, 16 were definitely, probably or possibly related to pesticide exposure. In 1995, DOH received 225 (56%) initial reports from other state agencies; 151 came from the Washington Poison Control Center.

In 1995, WSDA responded to 259 complaints about possible violations of state or federal regulations concerning pesticides. One hundred thirty-eight complaints were related to pesticides; 56 of these resulted in violations. The number of complaints has decreased significantly from 197 in 1993 to 64 in 1995. WSDA in 1995 experienced its fifth consecutive year in which the total number of complaints decreased.

Of the 259 incidents, 138 were related to pesticides and 121 were unrelated to pesticides. A total of 87 violations were issued (WSDA issued notices of violations in 31 cases unrelated to pesticides). Most of the violations were related to commercial applicators, as opposed to private applicators. The violations were almost equally split between commercial/industrial users, agricultural users and PCOs. The counties with the greatest numbers of complaints and violations were Spokane (37, 13), Yakima (27, 5), King (19, 11), Skagit (17, 5), Grant (16, 4), Pierce (16, 12), Benton (14, 2), Snohomish (12, 1), Walla Walla (12, 5) and Whatcom (11, 2). One hundred forty-seven (57%) of the 1995 WSDA complaints were in eastern Washington. The most commonly implicated pesticides (five or more complaints) were 2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, azinphos-methyl and diazinon.

In 1995, the L&I Consultation and Compliance Services Division conducted 24 pesticide-related investigations. Violations were reported in 21 of 24 investigations. The Claims Administration Program received 245 pesticide-related claims. Medical benefits were paid for 134 of the claims, 98 were rejected, time loss was paid on nine, and one was kept on salary. The percent of rejected pesticide-related claims increased in 1994 and 1995.

Of the 245 pesticide-related claims handled by L&I, 51% were related to production of fruit. Other categories included other (13.2%), field crops (11%), and nursery and greenhouse crops (9%).

In 1995, the WPC received 135,621 calls. Of these, 3,375 (2%) were pesticide-related. WPC refers to DOH pesticide-related calls where assistance with medical management is requested or recommended. One hundred fifty-one (4%) of the total WPC pesticide-related calls were referred to DOH.

Return to Table of Contents

USDA implemented the PDP in 1991 to provide data on pesticide residues on food. EPA uses these data in conducting realistic dietary risk assessment and in addressing the reregistration of pesticides vital to agriculture. PDP is now a critical part of the Food Quality Protection Act. In 1995, nine states (CA, CO, FL, MI, NY, NC, OH, TX and WA) participated.

A total 7,390 samples were analyzed in 1995. Fruit and vegetables accounted for 6,890 samples analyzed; wheat accounted for 600 samples. About 65% of the fruit and vegetable samples and 79 % of wheat samples tested contained residue from at least one pesticide. Post-harvest applications accounted for 29% of residue detections. For fruit and vegetables, 69 different pesticides/metabolites were detected; 10 were found on wheat. About 35% of the samples had no detectable levels of residues. Post-harvest applications excluded, the percentage is about 51%.

About 83% of samples tested were domestic, and 16.5% were imported. Of all samples tested, 3.8% were presumed to be in violation.

Most of these violations were for residues where no tolerance was established. There were no violations reported on wheat.

Explanation of the residue data and whether residues were over tolerance is complex ; this is not the forum for the presentation of those data. There were several compounds being used on spinach that were off label.... Chlorpropham (Sprout Nip) was found on 482 of 707 samples of potatoes. The tolerance is 50 ppm; residues ranged from 0.013 to 11 ppm. Residues for many compounds were below tolerance on all produce sampled. These compounds included, but were not limited to, azinphos-methyl, benomyl, captan, carbaryl, methoxychlor, and methyl parathion. There are many more.

Return to Table of Contents

Registration Division Priorities
a) methyl bromide alternatives
b) reduced risk candidates
c) USDA-EPA identified potentially vulnerable crops
d) minor use priorities
e) non-minor use priorities
f) addressing trade irritants

Keep in mind that EPA has given each registrant only five opportunities to submit to EPA during each review cycle. For medium to larger companies, having only five opportunities is a major limitation. Following is some additional EPA information on the various priorities.

Methyl Bromide Alternatives
Finding alternatives to methyl bromide is one of EPA's highest priorities (not just for the OPP, but for the entire agency). If a company submits a compound that is an alternative to methyl bromide, it will become an EPA priority and will not count as one of five slots provided to a company.

Reduced risk alternatives
If the chemical submitted for registration is determined by OPP to be a reduced risk candidate, then the Registration Division will expedite the review and the agency will conduct the fastest possible review.

USDA-EPA identified vulnerable crops
These combinations are identified as potentially vulnerable (i.e. those for which producers have only one or a limited number of efficacious alternatives, for which pest resistance limits effective pest management, or for which regulatory action would result in pest management problems). Examples of identified, potentially vulnerable crop/pest combinations are 1) alfalfa/aphids, 2) apples/mites, 3) apricots/mites, and 4) grape/grape philoxera, black vine weevil.

If a registrant intends to submit an action that specifically addresses one or more of the crop/pest combinations listed above, that action does not have to be one of the registrant's five priorities. It becomes an EPA priority.

Minor Use Economic Definition
A pesticide use on an agricultural crop grown on more than 300,000 acres or on a non-agricultural site may qualify as a minor use, provided the registrant can demonstrate that the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to support registration. This economic determination can be made by using the following equation: costs 3 gross revenues for one year for the specific site.

IR-4 will be given an unlimited number of priorities for its minor use submissions. 

Non-minor Use Priorities
A non-minor use priority may be defined as any of the following: 1) A single pesticide petition covering one or several major use agricultural crops, 2) An EUP with or without a temporary tolerance on a major use crop, 3) A new non-food use chemical or a new use for a non-food use chemical that does not meet the criteria for minor use, 4) A non-fast track amendment which impacts only major uses, and 5) An inert ingredient which impacts only major uses.

Return to Table of Contents

Tolerances

The following tolerances were granted by EPA since the last report (June 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 agriculture.

*Key

EPA recently established a time-limited tolerance on fenpropathrin on currants for 15 ppm expiring December 31, 1998. This tolerance was established in connection with the crisis exemption for use of fenpropathrin (Danitol 2.4 EC) on currants to control currant borer. EPA established the tolerance to allow legal distribution of currant products from currants that were treated with fenpropathrin under the crisis exemption.

Tolerance Corrections 

 In rule document 96-8946 beginning in the Wednesday, April 10, 1996, issue of the Federal Register on page 15895, make the following correction: On page 15896, in the third column, seventh line, "[insert date 3 years after the signature date]" should read "March 26, 1999".

EPA is correcting the tolerance level of the plant growth regulator, cyclanilide for meat of cattle, goats, horse, hogs and sheep as previously published. The tolerance residues are at 0.02 parts per million.

Emergency Exemptions (Section 18)

A specific exemption has been granted for the following use:

• Monsanto for use of glyphosate (Roundup Ultra and Ultra RT) on dry pea, lentil and chickpea for control of Canada thistle. The exemption expires October 1, 1997.

Crisis exemptions have been granted for the following uses:

• Zeneca for use of paraquat (Gramoxone Plus Herbicide) on green peas for seed and dry peas for desiccation of weeds. The exemption expires November 10, 1997.
• Dow Elanco for use of fenarimol (Rubigan E.C.) on hops for control of powdery mildew. The exemption expires October 1, 1997.

Return to Table of Contents

Special Local Needs (Section 24c)

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

• Rohm & Haas for use of Goal 2XL with chemigation on grapes grown for weed control - WA970024.
• Cheminova for use of parathion (Methyl 4EC) on peas for control of aphids and other insects - WA970034.
• Griffin Corp for use of triphenyltin hydroxide (Super Tin 80WP) on potatoes for control of late blight - WA970035.

The following Washington SLN registration has been voluntarily cancelled by the registering company:

• Platte Chemical Company for use of Dimethoate 400 - WA960026, WA960007.

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 July 29, 1997.