Idaho State DepartmentIdaho State DepartmentOf AgricultureOf Agriculture

Bob SpencerBob SpencerAgriculture Program ManagerAgriculture Program Manager

(208) 332-8613(208) 332-8613bspencer@agri.state.id.usbspencer@agri.state.id.us

Division of Agricultural Resources

Pesticide Complaint & InspectionTrends

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Years

Num

ber o

f Cas

es

Complaints

Routine

Total

Canyon County Worker Exposure CaseCanyon County Worker Exposure Case

Grower called in the morning to have the labor Grower called in the morning to have the labor foreman and his crew weed his onion fieldforeman and his crew weed his onion fieldGrower called his fieldman to check his onions for Grower called his fieldman to check his onions for insects and diseasesinsects and diseasesGrower and fieldman decided onions needed Grower and fieldman decided onions needed spraying with Lannate + Mustang Max + Dithanespraying with Lannate + Mustang Max + DithaneFieldman delivered chemical to applicator and Fieldman delivered chemical to applicator and mapped out the fields to be sprayedmapped out the fields to be sprayedApplicator (office manager) told fieldman they Applicator (office manager) told fieldman they mightmight get to it that evening get to it that evening

July 5, 2005

Worker Exposure Case (cont.)Worker Exposure Case (cont.)

Workers showed up on the afternoon of July Workers showed up on the afternoon of July 55thth and weeded part of the onion field and weeded part of the onion field

Applicator started spraying the onion fields at Applicator started spraying the onion fields at 2358 hours on July 52358 hours on July 5thth and finished at 0130 and finished at 0130 hours on July 6hours on July 6thth..

Worker Exposure Case (cont.)Worker Exposure Case (cont.)

29 field workers entered the field at 0600 hours 29 field workers entered the field at 0600 hours and finished weeding the field at 1100 hoursand finished weeding the field at 1100 hours

Workers moved to a sugar beet field, became Workers moved to a sugar beet field, became nauseous, dizzy, vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty nauseous, dizzy, vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty breathingbreathing

Crew foremen called 911Crew foremen called 911

HazMat Response Team setup decontamination HazMat Response Team setup decontamination sitesite

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.)Worker Exposure Case (cont.)

Several workers sent to hospital to be checked Several workers sent to hospital to be checked out, some were kept overnight, others were out, some were kept overnight, others were released and told not to go back to the fields for released and told not to go back to the fields for several daysseveral days

ISDA initiated investigation on July 6th ISDA initiated investigation on July 6th

ISDA attended public meeting with workersISDA attended public meeting with workers

Lots of media attention – locally & nationwide Lots of media attention – locally & nationwide

Lannate LV LabelLannate LV Label

Lannate LV LabelLannate LV Label

Worker Exposure Case (cont.)Worker Exposure Case (cont.)

Applicator Applicator failedfailed to notify the grower when to notify the grower when the field was going to be sprayedthe field was going to be sprayed

Grower was notified by applicator on the Grower was notified by applicator on the afternoon of July 6afternoon of July 6thth the field had been sprayed the field had been sprayed

Worker Exposure Case –Worker Exposure Case – Violations & PenaltiesViolations & Penalties

GrowerGrower– Failed to train his workersFailed to train his workers– Failed to maintain Central LocationFailed to maintain Central Location

3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS& WPS– $3,000 x 3 = $9,000 total civil penalty$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 total civil penalty– Paid penalty = $6,750Paid penalty = $6,750

Worker Exposure Case –Worker Exposure Case – Violations & PenaltiesViolations & Penalties

Labor ContractorLabor Contractor– Failed to train workersFailed to train workers– Failed to have decontamination site availableFailed to have decontamination site available

3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPSWPS– $3,000 x 3 = $9,000 total civil penalty$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 total civil penalty

Worker Exposure Case –Worker Exposure Case – Violations & PenaltiesViolations & Penalties

Applicator (second offense within past 3 years)Applicator (second offense within past 3 years)– Failed to provide Exchange of Information to growerFailed to provide Exchange of Information to grower

3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS– $3,000 x 3 = $9,000 civil penalty$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 civil penalty

– 8 days license suspension x 3 = 24 days license suspension8 days license suspension x 3 = 24 days license suspension

1 count of Faulty, Careless & Negligence1 count of Faulty, Careless & Negligence– $3,000 x 1 = $3,000 civil penalty$3,000 x 1 = $3,000 civil penalty

– 8 days license suspension x 1 = 8 days license suspension8 days license suspension x 1 = 8 days license suspension

Total penaltyTotal penalty– $12, 000 + 20 consecutive days license suspension$12, 000 + 20 consecutive days license suspension

Worker Exposure Case –Worker Exposure Case – Violations & PenaltiesViolations & Penalties

Applicator CompanyApplicator Company– Failed to provide Exchange of Information to growerFailed to provide Exchange of Information to grower

– Employees cited previouslyEmployees cited previously

3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label & WPS– $3,000 x 3 = $9,000 civil penalty$3,000 x 3 = $9,000 civil penalty

1 count of Faulty, Careless & Negligence1 count of Faulty, Careless & Negligence– $3,000 x 1 = $3,000 civil penalty$3,000 x 1 = $3,000 civil penalty

Total PenaltyTotal Penalty– $12,000$12,000

Worker Exposure Case – OtherWorker Exposure Case – Other

Referral to EPA to review Lannate labelReferral to EPA to review Lannate label– Posting only required for grapesPosting only required for grapes– Lack of interest for changing label from EPA & DuPontLack of interest for changing label from EPA & DuPont

EPA Criminal investigation was initiatedEPA Criminal investigation was initiated– Criminal case was droppedCriminal case was dropped

Pending lawsuit from workersPending lawsuit from workers– At least four workers still claiming adverse effectsAt least four workers still claiming adverse effects

Increased Insurance PremiumsIncreased Insurance PremiumsWorkman’s Compensation claimsWorkman’s Compensation claimsLocal and National media attentionLocal and National media attentionICAN proposed new RulesICAN proposed new Rules– Rule was held in committee March 2006Rule was held in committee March 2006– Legislative tour scheduled in July 2006Legislative tour scheduled in July 2006– Reintroduce revised legislation in 2007Reintroduce revised legislation in 2007

Bob SpencerBob Spencer

Division of Division of Agricultural Agricultural ResourcesResources

(208) 332-8613(208) 332-8613bspencer@agri.state.id.usbspencer@agri.state.id.us

THANK YOU!

ANY QUESTIONS?