NJDEP-N.J.A.C. 7:30-Pesticide Control Code
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Potential Spray Drift Damage: What Steps to Take?
[email protected] • (479) 575-7646 www.nationalaglawcenter.org An Agricultural Law Research Publication Potential Spray Drift Damage: What Steps to Take? by Tiffany Dowell Lashmet Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. An Agricultural & Food Law Consortium Project Potential Spray Drift Damage: What Steps to Take? Tiffany Dowell Lashmet Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service As many farmers know all too well, applications of various pesticides can result in drift and cause damage to neighboring property owners. In recent years, incidences of spray drift damage have been frequent and well-publicized. In the event a farmer discovers damage to his or her own crop, it is important for the injured producer to know some steps to take. Document, Document, Document First and foremost, any farmer who suspects possible injury from drift should document all potential evidence, including taking photographs or samples of damaged crops or foliage, keeping a log of spray applications made by neighboring landowners, noting any custom applicators applying pesticide in the area, documenting environmental conditions like wind speed, direction, and temperatures, and getting statements from any witnesses who might have seen recent pesticide applications. Photographs should be taken continually for several days, as the full extent of damage may not occur for several weeks after application. The more documentation a landowner has, the better his chances of recovery will be; whether it is from the offender, the offender’s insurance or potentially even the injured party’s insurance. -
Bmps) for Wildland Stewardship
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Wildland Stewardship Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management California Invasive Plant Council & Pesticide Research Institute ontrolling invasive plants is often a high priority when protecting wildlife habitat, and those working to protect Cwildlife from invasive plants want to be sure their approach is safe for wildlife. This manual of Best Management Practices focuses on how land managers can best protect wildlife when using herbicides to control invasive plants. While any invasive plant control method can potentially impact wildlife, chemical control methods are the focus of this report. The toxicology information presented shows data on herbicides most commonly used for invasive plant management in California natural areas. The Best Management Practices are drawn from methods used by experienced land managers. Along with providing guidance for land managers, this document is designed to inform the interested public about how herbicides are used to control invasive plants in natural areas. ©2015 California Invasive Plant Council Available at www.cal-ipc.org Cite this report as: Cal-IPC. 2015. Best Management Practices for Wildland Stewardship: Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management. Cal-IPC Publication 2015-1. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available: www.cal-ipc.org Cover photos: Large photo: American goldfinch by Gary Kramer, USFWS Top small photo: Herbicide applicator by Jim Dempsey, California State Parks Bottom small photo: Pacific tree frog by Sandy DeSimone, Audubon Starr Ranch Contents 1. Introduction . 1 Wildland Stewardship, Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife . 1 The Importance of Best Management Practices . 3 2. Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife . -
COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances
COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances revised 2/4/2021 IARC list 1 are Carcinogenic to humans list compiled by Hector Acuna, UCSB IARC list Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans IARC list Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans If any of the chemicals listed below are used in your research then complete a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the product as described in the Chemical Hygiene Plan. Prop 65 known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity Material(s) not on the list does not preclude one from completing an SOP. Other extremely toxic chemicals KNOWN Carcinogens from National Toxicology Program (NTP) or other high hazards will require the development of an SOP. Red= added in 2020 or status change Reasonably Anticipated NTP EPA Haz list COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances CAS Source from where the material is listed. 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide Acutely Toxic Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- Acutely Toxic 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Prop 65 KNOWN Carcinogens NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) IARC list Group 2A Reasonably Anticipated NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine) Prop 65 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea Acutely Toxic 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane IARC list Group 2B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Prop 65 IARC list Group 2B 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p -chloropheny)ethylene (DDE) Prop 65 1,1-Dichloroethane -
Impact of Pesticide Use on Health in Developing Countries
Impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries Proceedings of a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 1 7-20 September 1990 IDRC CRDI International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le devetoppement international 1 March 1993 Dear Reader/Librarian, IDRC is a public corporation created by the Canadian parliament in 1970 to help developing countries find viable solutions to their problems through research. At the 1992 Earth Summit, IDRC's mandate was broadened to emphasize sustainable development issues. As part of IDRC's strengthened commitment to global action and harüony, we are pleased to send you a complimentary copy of our most recent publication: The impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries (March 1993, 352 pages, 0-88936-560-1, $17.95). The first part of this book presents a brief survey of the global situation and the results of twelve epidemiological studies carried out by researchers from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. These focus on poisonings resulting from organophosphates, herbicides, and pyrethroids. The second part illustrates the role of the process of development, production, spraying techniques and legislation in protecting the health of workers. A discussion of the benefits and modalities of access to pertinent information for the prevention of pesticide poisonings is provided in the third section. Finally, in the fourth section, consideration is given to the advantages and disadvantages of certain alternatives to the use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture and public health, such as botanical pesticides and integrated pest management strategies. We hope this book is a valuable addition to your collection. -
Pesticides Affect Human Health
Contents Executive Summary Introduction How and Why Pesticides Affect Human Health Evidence of Illness Related to Pesticide Exposure Conclusions and Recommendations Glossary References Acknowledgements This report was written, edited and produced by the Environmental Justice Foundation is an international non-governmental Environmental Justice Foundation (Dr Mike organisation. More information about EJF’s work and PDF versions of this report Shanahan, Claire Jordan, Steve Trent and Juliette can be found at www.ejfoundation.org. Comments on the report, requests for Williams). Printed on % post-consumer waste further copies or specific queries about EJF should be directed to paper. [email protected]. Designed by Wulf Grimbly. This document should be cited as: We wish to thank the following individuals and EJF. 2003.What’s Your Poison? Health Threats Posed by Pesticides in Developing organisations that provided information, ideas, Countries. Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK. literature and visual material, critical reviews of earlier draft, or assisted in other ways: Dr Elizabeth ISBN no. 1-904523-03-X Guillette, Jacqui Mackay (Bananalink), Barbara Dinham and David Allen (Pesticide Action Network – UK), Mr Shree Padre, Mr Jayakumar C Related EJF Publications (available online at www.ejfoundation.org): (THANAL), CEDAC (Dr Yang Saing Koma, Keam Makarady, Lang Seng Horng), Helen Murphy, Erika Rosenthal and RAPAL (Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas en América Latina). In thanking these individuals, we in no way imply that they or their organisations fully endorse the report’s content. EJF. 2002. Death in Small Doses: Cambodia’s Pesticide Problems and Solutions. Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK. EJF. 2002. End of the Road for Endosulfan: A Call for Action Against a Dangerous Pesticide. -
Pesticides, Noxious Weed Control, and Chemical Drift Protection in Kansas
Pesticides, Noxious Weed Control, and Chemical Drift Protection in Kansas Written by Zack Pistora for the Kansas Rural Center January 2018 Pesticides, Noxious Weed Control and Chemical Drift Protection in Kansas Is a Kansas Rural Center publication Prepared by Zack Pistora With assistance from Paul Johnson, Joanna Will, and Mary Fund January 2018 Funding came from the Kansas Rural Center’s General Contributions This paper is intended as a brief overview of current pesticide and noxious weed law in Kansas, to provide background on pesticide use, trends and emerging problems. It is by no means a comprehensive review but is intended as a starting point for a more complete review, discussion and debate on the critical issues and problems, and all possible solutions. Kansas Rural Center 4021 SW 10th St. Topeka, Ks. 6604 [email protected] www.kansasruralcenter.org 866-579-5469 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Introduction and Basic Terms 7 Pesticides 8 Notable Pesticides Used in Kansas 10 National Trend for Notable Pesticides 11 Proliferating Problems with Pesticides 12 History and Legal Background 15 Kansas Pesticide Law 16 Kansas Noxious Weed Law 19 Another Option 20 Recommendations 22 Conclusion 23 References 24 Endnotes 26 3 Executive Summary The purpose of this paper is to provide background information on pesticide law in Kansas, including the noxious weed law, current pesticide usage and trends, and to describe emerging problems and issues and recommendations for Kansas’ pesticide use and noxious weed law as well as for farming practices and research needs. This paper is by no means a comprehensive review of all these issues but should be seen as a starting point for a more complete review, discussion and debate of the critical issues and all possible solutions. -
Consortium for International Crop Protection Pest Management & Related Environmental Protection Project*
CONSORTIUM FOR INTERNATIONAL CROP PROTECTION PEST MANAGEMENT & RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECT* ANNUAL REPORT TO AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 1983 - SEPIEMBER 1984 Ray F. Smith, University of California, Executive Director Member Institutions: Cornell University North Carolina State University Oregon State University Texas A&M University University of California University of Florida University of Hawaii University of Illinois University of Maryland University of Miami, Florida University of Minnesota Purdue University University of Puerto Rico U. S. Department of Agriculture * Contract No. AID/DSAN-C-0252 Project No. 931-0930 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction .......................................................... 1 Response to USAID Mission Requests for Technical Assistance ....................................... 6 Sudan ............................................... 7 Niger .......... ............................ ..... ..... 20 Thailand ........ ............................ .... ..... 23 Bolivia......................... ................. 28 Ecuador .............................................. 31 Belize ......................................... 35 Caribbean................. ....................... 40 Kenya........................................... 51 Grenada ..... ..................................... 54 Mexico ........... ....... .................... .. 58 Program Evaluation or Design .......................................... 62 Cameroon .................................................... 63 Central -
Understanding the Pesticide Label Greg J
NebGuide Nebraska Extension Research-Based Information That You Can Use G1955 Revised March 2021 Understanding the Pesticide Label Greg J. Puckett, Extension Assistant Jan R. Hygnstrom, Project Coordinator Erin C. Bauer, Entomology Lecturer Jennifer M. Weisbrod, Extension Educator This NebGuide describes the parts of a pesticide label to Pesticide manufacturers are required by law to provide aid in understanding and to promote safe and effective use of certain information on the label. This information includes: pesticide products. • brand name or trade name of the product; • ingredient statement; The pesticide label is more than just a piece of paper; it is a legal document recognized by courts of law. Using • percentage or amount of active ingredient(s) by a pesticide in a way that is inconsistent with its label is a weight; violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Roden- • net contents of the container; and ticide Act (FIFRA). Pesticide applicators assume certain responsibilities when they purchase and use a product. (For • name and address of the manufacturer. more information see NebGuide G479, Pesticide Laws and Regulations). Other required parts of the label are: Label formats vary according to pesticide type, regis- tration, toxicity, and manufacturer. Some of the many types • the registration and establishment numbers; of pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, • first aid statement (not always required); termiticides, and rodenticides. All pesticide products must be registered with the Environmental -
Managing Pesticide Drift1 F
PI232 Managing Pesticide Drift1 F. M. Fishel and J. A. Ferrell2 Introduction may drift and whether it is harmful depends on interrelated factors that can be complex. The drift of spray from pesticide applications can expose people, plants and animals, and the environment to Drift is a significant legal concern in Florida. During pesticide residues that can cause health and environmental 2009–2010, the Florida Department of Agriculture and effects and property damage. Agricultural practices are Consumer Services (FDACS), which is the state pesticide poorly understood by the public, which causes anxiety and regulatory agency, initiated 39 investigations in response sometimes overreaction to a situation. Even the application to allegations of drift. Where significant drift does occur, of fertilizers or biological pesticides, like Bt or pheromones, it can damage or contaminate sensitive crops, poison bees, can be perceived as a danger to the general public. Drift pose health risks to humans and animals, and contaminate can lead to litigation, financially damaging court costs, soil and water in adjacent areas (Figure 1). Applicators are and appeals to restrict or ban the use of crop protection legally responsible for the damages resulting from the off- materials. Urbanization has led to much of Florida’s agri- target movement of pesticides. It is impossible to eliminate cultural production being in areas of close proximity to the drift totally, but it is possible to reduce it to a legal level. general public, including residential subdivisions, assisted The purpose of this guide is to discuss factors influencing living facilities, hospitals, and schools. Such sensitive sites drift and provide common-sense solutions for minimizing heighten the need for drift mitigation measures to be taken potential drift problems. -
Veterinary Toxicology
GINTARAS DAUNORAS VETERINARY TOXICOLOGY Lecture notes and classes works Study kit for LUHS Veterinary Faculty Foreign Students LSMU LEIDYBOS NAMAI, KAUNAS 2012 Lietuvos sveikatos moksl ų universitetas Veterinarijos akademija Neužkre čiam ųjų lig ų katedra Gintaras Daunoras VETERINARIN Ė TOKSIKOLOGIJA Paskait ų konspektai ir praktikos darb ų aprašai Mokomoji knyga LSMU Veterinarijos fakulteto užsienio studentams LSMU LEIDYBOS NAMAI, KAUNAS 2012 UDK Dau Apsvarstyta: LSMU VA Veterinarijos fakulteto Neužkre čiam ųjų lig ų katedros pos ėdyje, 2012 m. rugs ėjo 20 d., protokolo Nr. 01 LSMU VA Veterinarijos fakulteto tarybos pos ėdyje, 2012 m. rugs ėjo 28 d., protokolo Nr. 08 Recenzavo: doc. dr. Alius Pockevi čius LSMU VA Užkre čiam ųjų lig ų katedra dr. Aidas Grigonis LSMU VA Neužkre čiam ųjų lig ų katedra CONTENTS Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………… 7 SECTION I. Lecture notes ………………………………………………………………………. 8 1. GENERAL VETERINARY TOXICOLOGY ……….……………………………………….. 8 1.1. Veterinary toxicology aims and tasks ……………………………………………………... 8 1.2. EC and Lithuanian legal documents for hazardous substances and pollution ……………. 11 1.3. Classification of poisons ……………………………………………………………………. 12 1.4. Chemicals classification and labelling ……………………………………………………… 14 2. Toxicokinetics ………………………………………………………………………...………. 15 2.2. Migration of substances through biological membranes …………………………………… 15 2.3. ADME notion ………………………………………………………………………………. 15 2.4. Possibilities of poisons entering into an animal body and methods of absorption ……… 16 2.5. Poison distribution -
Draft Spray Drift Workgroup
April 17, 2007 Spray Drift Workgroup – Final Report to PPDC Executive Summary The Spray Drift workgroup to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee met five times over the course of the last year in response to EPA’s request for input on how to mitigate risks to water from pesticide use. The workgroup was pleased that the OW and OPP are working together on this issue. The workgroup decided to focus primarily on: • Labeling to mitigate spray drift; • The role of education, training, and stewardship; and • Practices and equipment to mitigate drift and adverse effects from drift. Issues the EPA decided were beyond the scope of this workgroup include: 1) the content of EPA’s proposed rule concerning whether use of a pesticide requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (because the rule concerned aquatic pesticide applications, not pesticide spray drift, and because the comment period for the rule was closed and it was still in internal Agency review) and 2) the offtarget movement of pesticides through volatilization. In addition, the workgroup discussed “complex issues” surrounding spray drift, including: • What constitutes “harm” from spray drift? • Design standards vs. performance standards • Tailoring regulatory restrictions to local conditions, and • Determining the real world impacts of pesticide labeling The following report for each of these topics presents a summary of what the workgroup did, consensus findings, and, where possible, consensus recommendations to EPA to be considered by the full PPDC. Where consensus was not achieved, individual workgroup members provided additional comments for EPA consideration. These comments do not reflect the position of the workgroup as a whole but are included to provide EPA with a complete range of views on the topic. -
Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority Pesticides and Persistent Organic Pollutants (Pops) Regulati
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY PESTICIDES AND PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPS) REGULATIONS June 2004 INDEX PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Authority 2. Purpose 3. Effective date 4. Interpretation 5. Severability PART II - UNLAWFUL ACTS 6. General 7. Exemptions PART III - CERTIFICATION OF APPLICATORS 8. General requirements 9. Classes of applicators 10. Determination of competency 11. Standards for certification of commercial applicators 12. Standards for certification of private applicators 13. Duration of certification and renewals 14. Standards for supervision 15. Denial, suspension and revocation PART IV - PERMIT TO DEAL IN RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE 16. Permit required 17. Application for permit 18. Suspension or revocation PART V - RECORDS 19. Records to be kept by commercial applicators 20. Records to be kept by a licensed dealer 21. Additional records 22. Access to records PART VI - IMPORTATION 23. Notice of intent 24. Inspection 25. Shipments arriving without notice 26. Detained, denied, and impounded shipments PART VII - RESTRICTING AND BANNING OF PESTICIDES AND POPS 27. Restriction of pesticides 28. Banning of pesticides PART VIII - EXPERIMENTAL USE PERMITS 29. Application for permit 30. Restrictions 31. Denial 32. Duration 33. Special label requirements 34. Reports 35. Revocation PART IX - ENFORCEMENT 36. Violations 37. Public hearing 38. Right to enter 39. Penalty for lack of permit APPENDIX A Restricted Use Pesticides APPENDIX B Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY PESTICIDES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS 2004 PART I – GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Authority a) These regulations are promulgated by the Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority with the approval of the President pursuant to Sections 21 and 63 of the National Environmental Protection Act 1984.