Title: Idaho State Department Of Agriculture
1Idaho State DepartmentOf Agriculture
2Bob SpencerAgriculture Program Manager(208)
332-8613bspencer_at_agri.state.id.us
Division of Agricultural Resources
3(No Transcript)
4Canyon County Worker Exposure Case
July 5, 2005
- 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
5(No Transcript)
6Worker Exposure Case (cont.)
- Workers showed up on the afternoon of July 5th
and weeded part of the onion field - Applicator started spraying the onion fields at
2358 hours on July 5th and finished at 0130 hours
on July 6th.
7(No Transcript)
8(No Transcript)
9Worker 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
10- 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
11Worker 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
12(No Transcript)
13Lannate LV Label
14Lannate LV Label
15(No Transcript)
16(No Transcript)
17(No Transcript)
18Worker 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 6th the field had been sprayed
19Worker Exposure Case Violations Penalties
- Grower
- Failed to train his workers
- Failed to maintain Central Location
- 3 counts of Use Inconsistent with the label
WPS - 3,000 x 3 9,000 total civil penalty
- Paid penalty 6,750
20Worker 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 - 3,000 x 3 9,000 total civil penalty
21Worker 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 - 3,000 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, 000 20 consecutive days license suspension
22Worker 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 - 3,000 x 3 9,000 civil penalty
- 1 count of Faulty, Careless Negligence
- 3,000 x 1 3,000 civil penalty
- Total Penalty
- 12,000
23Worker 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
- Workmans 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
24THANK YOU! ANY QUESTIONS?
- Bob Spencer
- Division of Agricultural Resources
- (208) 332-8613
- bspencer_at_agri.state.id.us