Agrichemical and Environmental News -- Jan96
A monthly report on pesticides and related environmental issues

Issue No. 119, January 1996

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:
Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, Tri-Cities campus, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491. E-mail:

In This Issue

News and Notes Pesticide Container Recycling
Mating Disruption for Codling Moth Control WSDA Offers Second Workshop on Pesticide Registrations
Available Reports Pesticide Training Season Here
Pesticide Registration Costs Officially Unofficial
Pesticide Commission Federal Issues
The Future of Methyl Bromide

Return to
WAPP Home Page

News and Notes

Note: The AENews is now accessible from the World Wide Web via the Washington State Pesticide Page. The address for the page is:

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 Catherine Daniels (ph: 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491, E-mail:

Note: The address has changed for WSU Prosser and for Ellen Bentley, The new address is WSU Prosser, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, 24106 N. Bunn Road, Prosser, WA 99350-9687. Bentley may also be contacted by phone at 509-786-9271, by fax at 509-786-9370 or by E-mail at or

Triazine report released

Ciba, manufacturer of atrazine and simazine, has recently released a report on the benefits associated with the use of the two herbicides. The company states that the loss of both herbicides would lead to losses for all crops in the range of $1.2 billion to $2.9 billion; the greatest impact would be on corn and grain sorghum. On a per acre basis, crop losses would be greater for minor crops. Examples of crops affected by the loss of triazines, such as atrazine and simazine, include grapes (loss of $12,201,000), conifers (loss of $6,502,000), turfgrass and ornamentals (loss of $12,757,000), and fruit and nuts (loss of $10,290,000).

State posts record

For the fourth year in a row, Washington state has posted a record red raspberry crop. The 1995 total of 52,253,198 pounds represents a 14% increase over the previous year. The leading raspberry producing county in Washington, Whatcom County, by itself ranks as the fifth largest red raspberry growing region in the world. Other important raspberry producing counties in Washington are Skagit, Clark, Cowlitz and King counties.

Winter 1996, Northwest Raspberry Newsletter

Christmas trees

About one million acres of Christmas trees, some 35 million trees, were harvested nationally in 1995. One out of every three trees harvested in the U.S. came from Oregon or Washington. Oregon harvested about 8 million trees in 1995.

Reregistration program status

EPA's congressionally mandated pesticide reregistration program currently is expected to reach completion by the year 2004. This comprehensive reevaluation of pesticide safety is required for those pesticide active ingredients initially registered before November 1, 1984. Presently, 121 of 405 REDs (Reregistration Eligibility Decision Documents) have been completed. Each RED summarizes one or more of the 590 active ingredients being reviewed. About 40 REDs are expected to be done each year until the completion of the program. Thus far, only 46 of the 151 important food group REDs (List A) have been completed.

Pesticide residues

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation monitors produce for pesticide residues. In the late 1980s, CDPR began separating the data for organic produce and conventionally grown produce.

CDPR's report of its 1993 pesticide residue monitoring program states that organic produce may contain a pesticide residue and still be classified as organic, as long as the residue is less than 10% of the tolerance. This is to account for accidental contamination or residues remaining in soils from pesticide treatments made in previous years.

In conventionally raised produce known to have been treated with at least one pesticide, CDPR residue testing results show that 90% of analyzed produce samples have either no detectable residues or residues that are less than 10% of the tolerance. For marketplace surveillance samples, the figure was 88%. Thus, almost 90% of conventionally raised produce in California could be considered "organic" based on results of residue testing.

From Chemically Speaking, University of Florida newsletter.

Growers penalized for off-label use

Some Connecticut blueberry growers learned the hard way what can happen when a pesticide is used off-label. The growers used methiocarb (Mesurol) on their blueberry crop in 1995. Unfortunately, the compound, which is used to control slugs and insects and to repel birds, has not been registered on blueberries since 1984. EPA stated that the pesticide residues, which were up to 10 ppm, could pose an acute dietary risk to consumers. As a result of the detection of illegal residues, blueberry fields on three farms were closed.

California ponders methyl bromide use

California governor, Pete Wilson, called a special legislative session January 3 to consider legislation allowing the continued use of methyl bromide as a registered pesticide. Because pesticide health effects studies required by a 1984 California law have not been completed, methyl bromide's registration is slated to expire March 30. If that happens, California is expected to lose the ability to export produce to several countries that require methyl bromide treatment of many crops. California would be the only state where the product would become unavailable.

U.S. produce faces possible quarantine

Colombia wants quarantine restrictions on all U.S. fruits and vegetables, because the Oriental fruit fly was detected in California last October. The import restrictions, if enacted, would most affect Northwest growers of apples and pears; the two commodities comprise the bulk of produce shipments to Colombia. Colombia is the second largest South American market for Washington apples after Brazil. The Colombian action follows similar actions by Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil; however those issues have been resolved and U.S. produce is being allowed into those countries without restrictions.

Return to Table of Contents

The future of methyl bromide

Note: This article is an excerpt taken from the January issue of the Northwest Horticultural Council newsletter.

The Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol of the United Nations, for the purpose of reviewing issues regarding ozone depletion, was held in Vienna, Austria from November 28 to December 5, 1995.

Although other ozone depleting substances are also covered by the Protocol, methyl bromide and discussions regarding its use were the major concern of U.S. agricultural observers in attendance.

Dr. Wally Ewart of the Northwest Horticultural Council attended the preliminary technical sessions of the meeting. Also in attendance were representatives from the Crop Protection Coalition (CPC). The coalition helped Dr. Ewart to provide input to the U.S. delegation on the positions of production agriculture related to methyl bromide. The final draft report, containing agreed upon changes in the Protocol, did not redress significant imbalances identified by the CPC.

Changes in the Protocol will lead to a shift in the use of methyl bromide, especially for soil fumigation purposes, from developed countries to developing countries. The use of methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment is currently exempted from these changes. Major changes for developed countries, e.g. the U.S., include reductions in use of methyl bromide of 25% by 2001 and 50% by 2005. Methyl bromide importation and production are to be phased out completely by 2010.

In contrast, developing countries such as Chile and Mexico face a freeze (based on levels observed in 1995-1998) on importation and production in the year 2002. Future phase out decisions by developing countries will depend upon the availability of funds from the international community to reward them for changes in their use levels.

In the U.S., the Clean Air Act currently mandates the phase out of methyl bromide in the year 2001. Although the Clinton Administration has expressed support for a change in the Clean Air Act in regard to methyl bromide, only a registrant sponsored bill - H.R. 2230- known as the Miller bill, has been introduced.

Significant differences exist between the Miller bill and provisions acceptable to the Administration. The needs of agricultural producers, to ensure availability of methyl bromide where no acceptable alternatives exist, may require less than the expansive changes to the Clean Air Act.

Return to Table of Contents

Pesticide container recycling

The Washington Pest Consultants Association has completed another year of collecting pesticide containers for recycling. A total of 80,000 containers were collected this year, a record for the four-year-old program. Containers were collected and processed for recycling at 36 sites in 1995. Over 250 individuals deposited containers.

On December 13, 1995, Tri Rinse, Inc., the company that contracts with WPCA for recycling in Washington, sponsored a meeting in St. Louis for state organizations that recycle pesticide containers. Fourteen states were represented. WPCA recycling project coordinator, Steve George, attended the meeting.

The parent organization involved in pesticide container recycling, the Agricultural Container Research Council, insures that recycled containers are used to make appropriate end use products. Items considered acceptable for manufacture from recycled pesticide containers include drain tile, road mats, speed bumps, rail road ties and plastic pallets.

There are about 30 million pounds of plastic containers generated in the U.S. Currently, 20% of the containers are recycled. The state with the greatest percentage of recycled pesticide containers is Mississippi, with 80% returned.

Tri Rinse, which receives Washington containers, is the leading recycler of pesticide containers. The plastic from Washington is sent to a processor in Oakland, CA. for recycling into plastic pallets. All the pallets are sold to United Agri Products. (UAP)

Specific state recycling highlights:

Note: Steve George is the WPCA recycling coordinator. For more information on recycling of pesticide containers, please contact Mr. George at (509)-457-3850.

Book on minor crops published

Washington Minor Crops is a 340-page book that provides an overview of the more than 200 minor use food, feed and seed crop produced commercially in the state of Washington. It is available for $30 per copy from the Washington State University Bulletins Office at Cooper Publications Building, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-5912. Please request publication MISC 0181 and make checks payable to Cooperative Extension Publications.

For more information, contact Catherine Daniels at 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491, or E-mail at

Return to Table of Contents

Mating disruption for codling moth control

Mating disruption is a new and promising technology for the control of codling moth, Cydia pomonella, the key insect pest of apples in the Pacific Northwest.

Interest in the approach has increased rapidly since the first product was registered in 1991; more than 17,000 acres were treated in 1995 in Washington. As with any new technique, it is not a "silver bullet" and we need to learn more about how to best use mating disruption in a variety of orchard situations.

Codling moth males locate their mates by following a plume of sex pheromone released by the female. ln mating disruption, dispensers, placed on trees throughout the orchard, release a synthetic sex pheromone in concentrations sufficient to interfere with the normal process of mate location. Without mating, there are no larvae, and fruit damage is prevented. The technique is non-toxic, specific to codling moth and can reduce or eliminate the need to use conventional insecticides, such as azinphos-methyl, for codling moth control. Reducing reliance on conventional insecticides will enhance the potential of biological control of other apple pests, including aphids, leafhoppers and leafminers, and allow a further reduction in insecticide use.

Reduced use of conventional insecticides lessens potential risks to orchard workers, limits the management difficulties posed by lengthy re-entry intervals, posting and reporting requirements, and can be a clear sign to consumers and the general public that apple growers are responsive to their concerns about pesticide residues and environmental quality. In addition, codling moth resistance to organophosphate insecticides is increasing, resulting in increased numbers of applications and higher rates of the products, with mixed results.

Mating disruption provides an alternative control method that can supplement or replace organophosphate sprays, thereby extending the useful life of these products or even permitting a reduction in resistance levels. Successful use of mating disruption may permit Inland Northwest apple producers, with their relatively low disease pressure and lack of other direct fruit pests, to produce high-quality apples with less reliance on broad spectrum insecticides.

Several concerns, primarily regarding efficacy and cost, have been raised by growers and consultants with experience in the use of mating disruption. Good control of codling moth has been achieved in many cases where dispensers have been applied properly, but unacceptable damage has occurred in treated orchards where initial codling moth populations have been too high. Monitoring codling moth populations, generally done with pheromone-baited sticky traps in conventional orchards, is less reliable in mating disrupted orchards, due to the high pheromone concentrations. Cost of mating disruption approaches $110 to $125 per acre for the season, in contrast to the $40 to $80 spent for most conventional codling moth control programs. However, many growers have found that the use of mating disruption reduces by three or more the number of cover sprays needed in high pressure areas, and that the population reductions achieved have permitted the elimination of most if not all cover sprays in second and subsequent years.

Reducing cover sprays has resulted in better biological control of secondary pests. However, leafroller populations have increased in many blocks, leading to additional costs for monitoring and controlling this pest.

Mating disruption will require extra effort and cost for growers to get the information and advice they need to be successful. The successful implementation of mating disruption requires an understanding of pest biology, timing and monitoring techniques that goes far beyond what has been required of most growers for their conventional control programs.

In 1995 the Areawide Codling Moth Management Program began at five sites in the Western U.S.: Randall Island, in the Sacramento River Delta region in California, Medford, Oregon; Parker, just south of Yakima, Washington; Howard Flat, near Chelan, Washington; and Oroville, Washington, along the Canadian border. The USDA is providing funding for the project managers, seasonal staff, equipment needs and for a per acre subsidy of pheromone dispenser costs. At each site, a large (300 to 1,200 acre) contiguous area has had pheromone dispensers placed for codling moth control. The project manager at each site works with the growers (ranging from five at Randall Island to 36 at Howard Flat) and area crop consultants in applying the pheromone, monitoring pest and beneficial insects, and recording insect population data, pest control measures and pest damage.

The area-wide approach was chosen to maintain a high, continuous level of pheromone in the treated areas and to reduce the "edge effect" of orchard borders that have been shown to be at increased risk of codling moth damage. It is also hoped that creating a large area with minimal or no use of broad-spectrum insecticides will promote the establishment of beneficial insects and enhance biological con t

Results from the first year are encouraging, with codling moth damage levels equal to or lower than nearby conventional areas, and with spray applications used for codling moth control reduced by as much as 75%. Most areas showed increases in predator and parasite populations, often with measurable improvement in biological control of secondary pests. Leafroller populations increased at all sites, however, replacing codling moth at several sites as the main cause of fruit damage. Increased effort will be needed in 1996 for leafroller monitoring and control.

Note:Ted Alway began work for WSU in late 1995 as the Extension Program Coordinator for Codling Moth IPM. He works out of the Cooperative Extension office in Wenatchee, providing educational opportunities and information regarding mating disruption and other new and related means of apple pest management.

Alway can be reached at (509)-664-5540.

Return to Table of Contents

Pesticide training season here

Washington State University has mailed out its Pre-License and Recertification brochures to all licensed pesticide applicators. Recertification courses offer six recertification credits per day. For copies of the brochures, contact one of the following:

Your local county extension office

  • Conference Planning Service (509-335-2830)

  • E-mail to: or to

  • Print them off the World Wide Web at the following address:

    Pesticide RECERTIFICATION Programs for Eastern Washington
    Wenatchee (in Spanish)Feb. 8
    Pesticide RECERTIFICATION Programs for Western Washington
    LynnwoodFeb. 6, 7
    Mt. VernonFeb. 14, 15
    OlympiaFeb. 28
    SilverdaleMar. 4, 5
    BellevueMar. 6, 7
    Integrated Plant
    Health Workshop,
    Mar. 5-8
    (5 credits per day)

    PRE-LICENSE Courses in Eastern Washington
    YakimaJan. 31, Feb. 1, 2
    SpokaneFeb. 5, 6, 7
    Moses LakeFeb. 13, 14, 15
    PRE-LICENSE Courses in Western Washington
    LynnwoodFeb. 5, 6, 7
    Mt. VernonFeb. 13, 14, 15
    OlympiaFeb. 26, 27, 28

    Garlic workshop planned

    A garlic production workshop, sponsored by the North Willamette Research and Extension Center, is to be held February 27 at the NWREC office in Aurora, OR.

    Early signup is encouraged, as the workshop is limited to 80 participants, and the program looks to be outstanding. Preregistration is required. The charge for the workshop is $30. A box lunch and a break for coffee and donuts are included.

    The workshop begins at 8 a.m. and continues to 4:30 p.m. Programs include an overview of the industry; economics of production; growth, development and production requirements, garlic seed production and contracts, management of weeds and other pests, variety identification and marketing of fresh garlic products.

    To register, send $30 checks, payable to NWREC, to Garlic Production Workshop, North Willamette Research and Extension Center, 15210 NE Miley Rd., Aurora, OR 97002.

    More information may be obtained by contacting N.S. Bill Mansour at 541-737-5461, fax: 541-737-3479, E-mail: or Patricia Riffe at 541-737-5480, fax: 541-737-3479, E-mail:

    Return to Table of Contents

    Pesticide registration costs

    One hears a lot of different stories about the cost of registering a pesticide. I was provided recently with the best information I have seen on the cost of new product development by Robert Ehn of FMC.

    Eight companies pooled product registration data for 13 compounds for a period from 1989 and 1993. The results were released by the American Crop Protection Association on September 14, 1994.

    According to these results, the average time between initial discovery of a pesticide product and first registration was 125.3 months or 10.4 years. The average cost of development and first registration of a product was $35.9 million. The lower quartile of cost was $21.3 million, and the upper quartile was $42.9 million. The total number of months from application to approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was 33.6 months.

    It is important to remember that beyond the cost of development and registration of a pesticide, additional costs incurred include cost of manufacture, marketing, sales and other assorted costs of doing business. I was told once that a critical issue in how and when a product will come to market is the cost and whether a company has the capacity to manufacture a product.

    ...Alan Schreiber

    Return to Table of Contents

    IPM education workshop offered

    The Foundation for IPM Education has provided funding for development of integrated pest management short courses across the wheat production belt. The training is intended to complement existing state IPM educational programs.

    A short workshop for members of the Northwest Grain and Feed Association is scheduled for February 14 at the Coeur d'Alene Resort in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

    Those interested in IPM education are invited to attend. Questions regarding the workshop may be directed to the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Entomology, at (405)-744-5531.

    Tentative Program

    1:00Welcome & objectives of the programTerri Lange, NW Grain & Feed
    1:15What is stored grain IPM?Gerrit Cuperus
    1:30Market benefits of sound IPM systemsPhil Kenkel
    2:15Tour of an ideal IPM elevator featuring key
    elements of: S (Sanitation). L (Loading),
    A (Aeration) and M (Monitoring)
    Ron Noyes, Gerrit Cuperus
    2:45Insect identification/managementLarry Sandvol, Univ. of Idaho
    3:15Engineering specificsRon Noyes
    3:45Costs of IPMPhil Kenkel
    4:15Future technologies

    Return to Table of Contents

    Available Reports

    Return to Table of Contents

    Officially Unofficial

    "Officially Unofficial" is a regular feature that may include information considered inappropriate by some.
    **The Registration Division of EPA's Office of Pesticide Program has approximately 100 vacancies. Expected future budget cuts of 10% to 15% could increasingly hamper EPA's ability to register pesticides. EPA plans to cut other programs in order to protect the reregistration programs. This means fewer resources will be given to registration of conventional pesticides.

    **No captan registrations are expected to be lost due to reregistration. Also, no current captan registrations will be subjected to the Delaney Clause. This means captan registrations will remain on grapes.

    **The most important item in the Washington State University supplemental budget request to Governor Mike Lowry was the $1.525 million for winegrape research and the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration. Greg Royer, WSU Executive Director for Budget and Planning, told the commission that Gov. Lowry chose not to include the request in his budget and has left the decision to the Legislature. Royer also said that, in the event that the funding is not provided, cuts totaling $1.525 million would be made to existing ag programs in order to fund grape research and the commission.

    **In order to purchase and use aldicarb (Temik) on potatoes, applicators must first be certified by Rhone-Poulenc. I attended a certification training program recently sponsored by RP in Pasco. The program was informative and rather technical. Much of the program was devoted to positive displacement application equipment; application with PDA is a requirement for use of aldicarb on potatoes. It was interesting to note that attendance was literally standing room only. If attendance at these meetings is an indication of interest in aldicarb, things are looking up for the compound. Also, there are only two kinds of application equipment that can be certified to apply aldicarb on potatoes. I am guessing that it is not coincidental that the one type of applicator that RP is heavily suggesting growers use just happens to be made by a company that RP owns.

    **The Commission on Pesticide Registration did not decide on how much it would spend on proposals for 1996, nor did it decide on an upper limit on dollar amounts per proposal. It has committed already to $160,000 for GLP IR-4 projects. Considering that the commission has a $500,000 annual budget, the commission could easily spend up to $200,000 to $250,000 on project proposals.

    Return to Table of Contents

    WSDA offers second workshop
    on pesticide registrations

    Those interested in pesticide registration, particularly the procedures for obtaining Section 18 emergency exemptions and Section 24(c) registrations, are invited to attend the second Minor Crop Registration Workshop sponsored by the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

    The workshop, scheduled for March 19 at the Washington State University Tri-Cities Campus Room 252 West in Richland, Wash., will focus on how to receive a Section 18 emergency exemption (including a perspective from the Environmental Protection Agency) and Section 24(c) registrations. Alan Schreiber, WSU Pesticide Coordinator, will discuss how Washington State University, IR-4 and the new Commission on Pesticide Registration can help generate data for these types of registration needs.

    Also planned is a presentation on Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) and the important role these data gathering projects play in obtaining future registrations. The workshop will feature WSDA registration staff, commodity organization representation and a researcher perspective.

    Approximately 50 individuals, including growers, researchers, registrants and industry-related personnel, attended the first WSDA-sponsored Minor Crop Registration Workshop held in Olympia in October. Evaluations from that first workshop were positive, and the WSDA hopes to make this second workshop just as informative and helpful.

    The workshop is offered at no charge. However, those planning to attend should obtain registration forms and return them by the March 8 deadline in order to ensure accommodations. Meals are not provided, although light refreshments will be provided for the afternoon session. A cafeteria is located in the same building as the workshop.

    To obtain a registration form, an agenda covering the day's activities and/or more information about the workshop, contact WSDA Minor Crop Program coordinators Michelle Hauff at 509-575-2595, Robin Schoen-Nessa at 360-902-2027 or WSDA Registration Branch at 360-902-2030.

    Directions/Hotel Information: WSU Tri-Cities is located at 100 Sprout Road, Richland, Wash. From 182, exit onto George Washington Way, go north about five miles and past Hanford High School on the right. The next road to the right is Sprout Road. Turn right on to Sprout Road and take the last left into the campus parking lot. Parking is free. Hotels within a short drive of campus include the Shilo Inn (509-946-4661) in Richland, Best Western Tower Inn (509-946-4121) in Richland and Cavanaughs (1-800-843-4667) in Kennewick.

    ...Robin Schoen-Nessa

    Return to Table of Contents

    Pesticide commission to fund projects

    The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration, in its fourth meeting January 18 in Puyallup, agreed on a request for proposals (RFP) to fund field and lab work in 1996. The commission has already funded 11 projects. The commission will be releasing the RFP by the end of January.

    The purpose of the RFP is to fund studies and activities that will result in pesticide registrations for minor uses. Only requests for assistance with projects that are expected to result in obtaining or maintaining a pesticide registration will be considered. The request for proposals is for work to be conducted in 1996, although projects for multiple years may be submitted.

    Proposals must originate from the affected pesticide user community. Proposals will be considered from such sectors as agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, structural pest control, ornamental/nursery, golf course and commercial applicators. Requests will not be accepted from pesticide manufacturers, dealers or distributors. Funded projects can be carried out by university, USDA or private researchers in Washington and other states. Those presenting proposals are encouraged to suggest individuals to carry out projects, but the WSCPR ultimately will decide who conducts funded projects.

    Project requests should be limited to five pages, not including budget and attachments. Any project that involves generation of pesticide residue data in support of a registration must include use of Good Laboratory Practices.

    Users of pesticides on sites or crops not in the top 20 agricultural commodities produced in Washington are especially encouraged to submit proposals. The current top 20 commodities in Washington are apples, milk, cattle and calves, wheat, potatoes, farm forest products, hay, nursery and greenhouse, pears, hops, sweet cherries, eggs, chicken and broilers, onions, grapes, asparagus, sweet corn, field corn, mint oil and Christmas trees.

    Although proposals are not required to include matching support, applicants are encouraged to provide match funding, in-kind services or materials for laboratory studies and investigations.

    Each proposal should contain a brief description of the affected industry and a detailed description of the pest problem, using any of the following appropriate criteria: deficiencies with existing control measures, per acre/unit impact, acres impacted, aggregate impact to industry, effect of the pest problem on the industry, effect of the pest problem on consumers, society, environment, non-target species or human health.

    All proposals received will be acknowledged. Proposals not adhering to WSCPR guidelines will be returned to applicants; additional guidance will be extended for any returned proposals. Proposals will be judged by the following criteria: 1) relevance to WSCPR areas of emphasis; 2) overall merit and quality of proposal; 3) feasibility of completing project objectives within stated time frames; 4) appropriateness of request budget and 5) adherence to WSCPR guidelines.

    The WSCPR has selected three areas of emphasis for proposals. WSCPR will consider proposals dealing with pest control problems having an adverse economic impact to the user community; pest control problems that pose some risk to human health or pest control problems that pose adverse risks to the environment.

    Proposals are due by March 7, 1996 to Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Lab, WSU Tri-Cities, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352-1643. Daniels can be reached at 509 372-7492 and by E-mail at Proposals will be reviewed by WSCPR prior to the March 20 commission meeting. Applicants should be available to make a brief presentation and to respond to questions from commissioners at the March 20 meeting of the WSCPR at the WSU Tri-Cities branch campus.

    In addition to developing a request for proposals, the WSCPR elected officers. Bob Berger was elected chair, Del Vanderhoff was elected vice-chair, Ann George was elected treasurer and Alan Schreiber was voted administrator. The three officers, the administrator and the immediate past chair will serve as the executive committee. The executive committee was charged with developing bylaws for the commission.

    Greg Royer, WSU Executive Director for Budget and Planning, reported on development of WSU policy in regard to the commission. Royer stated that the $1 million appropriated to the commission belongs to the commission and not to WSU. WSU will not levy indirect or overhead charges against this money. Nor will it levy indirect charges on commission generated matching funds held by the university. It is unusual for WSU to waive indirect costs, but WSU was attempting in this case to provide as much support for the commission as possible. The $1 million for the commission cannot be carried over to the next biennium, and any funds not expended would become unavailable.

    The WSCPR voted to sponsor a Washington minor crop tour in 1996, with the intended purpose of educating chemical companies on pesticide registration opportunities on minor use sites in the state.

    The next meetings of the WSCPR are scheduled for March 20 at the WSU Tri-Cities Campus and for May 22 at the WSU Extension Office in the courthouse. All meetings begin at 10 a.m. and are open to the public. For more information on the WSCPR or to be placed on the Interested Parties list, contact Catherine Daniels.

    Note: The WSCPR is actively seeking proposals to support efforts to secure pesticide registrations for minor use pesticide registrations in Washington. If you are interested in securing assistance in obtaining or maintaining a pesticide registration, please contact Catherine Daniels at (509)-372-7492, fax: (509)-372-7460 or E-mail:

    Return to Table of Contents

    Federal Issues


    The following tolerances were granted by EPA since the last report (December 1995). These data do not mean that a label has been registered for this use. These pesticides must not be used until a label is registered with EPA or a state department of agriculture.

    A=adjuvantD=desiccant D/H=desiccant, herbicide
    F=fungicideFA=feed additive G=growth regulatorH=herbicide
    I-insecticideN=nematicide P=pheromoneV=vertebrate repellent

    (F) TebuconazoleMiles1.0 peaches, nectarines
    (A) a-Alkyl (C21-
    Petroliteexemptwhen used at levels
    not to exceed 10% as a
    wetting agent or granule
    coating in pesticide
    (H) LinuronIR-47.0asparagus
    (I) Neem OilWR Graceexempt when used as a broad-
    spectrum fungicide/
    insecticide/miticide on all
    greenhouse and terres-
    trial food crops
    (I) ImidaclopridGustafson1.5 (a) barley, forage
    0.05 (a)barley, grain
    0.2 (a)barley, straw
    0.05 (b)beets, sugar (roots)
    0.1 (b)beets, sugar (tops)
    7.0 (b)wheat, forage
    0.05 (b)wheat, grain
    0.3 (b)wheat, straw
    (H) ClopyralidIR-41.0 asparagus
    (F) MetalaxylCiba-Geigy10.0 grass, forage
    25.0grass, hay
    (H) GlufosinateAgrEvo USA0.5 (c) almond hulls
    0.05 (c)apples
    0.05 (c)cattle, goats, hogs,
    horses, sheep; fat
    0.05 (c)cattle, goats, hogs,
    horses, sheep; meat
    0.1 (c)cattle, goats, hogs,
    horses, sheep; mbyp
    0.05 (c)grapes
    0.02 (c)milk
    0.1 (c)tree nuts group
    (I) CarbofuranEPA1.0 (d)canola
    (H) OxyfluorfenIR-40.05blackberry
    0.05garbanzo beans

    (a) Time-limited tolerance expires Nov. 28, 1998 (b) Time-limited tolerance expires Aug. 24, 1998 (c) Time-limited tolerance expires July 13, 1999 (d) Time-limited tolerance expires Feb. 22, 1998

    Emergency Exemptions (Section 18)

    A crisis exemption has been granted for the following use:

    Reregistration Notifications

    For additional information on any reregistration notification, contact the individual (s) listed or contact:

    Alan Schreiber WSU Pesticide Coordinator 100 Sprout Road Richland, WA 99352-1643

    Ph: 509-372-7324 Fax: 509-372-7460

    Return to Table of Contents

    Contributors to the Agrichemical and Environmental News:

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

    If you would like to include a piece in a future issue of the Agrichemical and Environmental News or subscribe to the newsletter, please contact Catherine Daniels.

    Contributions, comments and subscription inquiries may be directed to: 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:

    Return to Table of Contents