Idaho State Department Of Agriculture

Bob Spencer Agriculture Program Manager (208) Division of Agricultural Resources

Canyon County Worker Exposure Case Grower called in the morning to have the labor foreman and his crew weed his onion field Grower called his fieldman to check his onions for insects and diseases Grower and fieldman decided onions needed spraying with Lannate + Mustang Max + Dithane Fieldman delivered chemical to applicator and mapped out the fields to be sprayed Applicator (office manager) told fieldman they might get to it that evening July 5, 2005

Worker Exposure Case (cont.) Workers showed up on the afternoon of July 5 th and weeded part of the onion field Applicator started spraying the onion fields at 2358 hours on July 5 th and finished at 0130 hours on July 6 th.

Worker Exposure Case (cont.) 29 field workers entered the field at 0600 hours and finished weeding the field at 1100 hours Workers moved to a sugar beet field, became nauseous, dizzy, vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty breathing Crew foremen called 911 HazMat Response Team setup decontamination site

Concerns during Emergency Medical Response  Privacy of individuals during decontamination  Communication with workers – only two EMRs spoke Spanish  Chain-of-Custody issues to collect clothing samples

Worker Exposure Case (cont.) Several workers sent to hospital to be checked out, some were kept overnight, others were released and told not to go back to the fields for several days ISDA initiated investigation on July 6th ISDA attended public meeting with workers Lots of media attention – locally & nationwide

Lannate LV Label

Worker Exposure Case (cont.) Applicator failed to notify the grower when the field was going to be sprayed Grower was notified by applicator on the afternoon of July 6 th the field had been sprayed

Worker Exposure Case – Violations & Penalties Grower –Failed to train his workers –Failed to maintain Central Location 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS –$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 total civil penalty –Paid penalty = $6,750

Worker Exposure Case – Violations & Penalties Labor Contractor –Failed to train workers –Failed to have decontamination site available 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS –$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 total civil penalty

Worker Exposure Case – Violations & Penalties Applicator (second offense within past 3 years) –Failed to provide Exchange of Information to grower 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS –$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 civil penalty –8 days license suspension x 3 = 24 days license suspension 1 count of Faulty, Careless & Negligence –$3,000 x 1 = $3,000 civil penalty –8 days license suspension x 1 = 8 days license suspension Total penalty –$12, consecutive days license suspension

Worker Exposure Case – Violations & Penalties Applicator Company –Failed to provide Exchange of Information to grower –Employees cited previously 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS –$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 civil penalty 1 count of Faulty, Careless & Negligence –$3,000 x 1 = $3,000 civil penalty Total Penalty –$12,000

Worker Exposure Case – Other Referral to EPA to review Lannate label –Posting only required for grapes –Lack of interest for changing label from EPA & DuPont EPA Criminal investigation was initiated –Criminal case was dropped Pending lawsuit from workers –At least four workers still claiming adverse effects Increased Insurance Premiums Workman’s Compensation claims Local and National media attention ICAN proposed new Rules –Rule was held in committee March 2006 –Legislative tour scheduled in July 2006 –Reintroduce revised legislation in 2007

Bob Spencer Division of Agricultural Resources (208) THANK YOU! ANY QUESTIONS?