Jump to main content.

Worker Protection Standard (WPS): Agriculture-Related Enforcement Cases

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more about PDF, and for a link to the free Acrobat Reader.

The following are enforcement-related cases pertaining to the Worker Protection Standard and related to agriculture.  Additional related enforcement cases can be found on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA): Agriculture-Related Enforcement Cases page.

Enforcement Cases from EPA

Information from States

August 12, 2009

EPA Cites Arizona Nursery for Pesticide Misuse, Worker Safety Issues
EPA fined Linden Tree Nursery, Inc. $1,760 for allegedly misusing a pesticide and failing to comply with federal pesticide worker safety regulations. In 2008, Linden Tree Nursery, located at 19644 North 111th Ave, misused the restricted use pesticide Diazinon AG500 and failed to assure that an applicator received safety training during the previous 5 years as required by law, constituting violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

"Agricultural employers must ensure that their workers are provided with information and protection to minimize the risk of exposure to pesticides," said Katherine Taylor, Associate Director of the EPA’s Communities and Ecosystems Division for the Pacific Southwest region. "Failure to provide these necessary safeguards is considered a serious violation."

The Arizona Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during a worker protection inspection in May 2008. During the pesticide applications, Linden Tree Nursery, Inc. failed to provide its pesticide applicators with required safety training, which under federal law constitutes a misuse of a registered pesticide. These safeguards are required by the federal Worker Protection Standard, which aims to reduce the risk of pesticide injuries to agricultural workers.

Diazinon AG500 is limited to agricultural use only and must be applied by a certified applicator or a person under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Linden Tree Nursery’s May 2008 application of Diazinon AG500 had neither a certified applicator nor a person under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

The Worker Protection Standard, part of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, aims to protect worker health and the environment from exposure to pesticides through the strict enforcement of labeling requirements. The standard contains requirements for the provision of pesticide safety training, decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance, as well as the notification of recent pesticide applications, the use of protective equipment, and restrictions on reentry into fields where pesticides have been applied.

Top of Page

August 11, 2009

EPA Settles with Nevada Tree Nursery Over Worker Protection Violations
EPA fined a Minden, Nevada-based ornamental tree nursery for allegedly misusing pesticides contrary to labeling requirements and failing to comply with federal pesticide worker safety laws. Genoa Tree Nursery misused the pesticides Round-Up Pro, Lontrel, and Amine 4 2,4 Weedkiller during applications in May and June 2008. The company failed to comply with label directions that require it to minimize the risk of exposure by notifying workers and handlers of recent pesticide applications on particular fields, and failed to provide workers with nearest emergency medical care facility information in case of exposure. The EPA fined Genoa Tree Nursery $5,440 for these three violations.

The Nevada Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during a routine inspection in June 2008.

The Worker Protection Standard, part of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, aims to protect workers from occupational exposure to pesticides through the strict enforcement of labeling requirements. The standard contains requirements for the provision of pesticide safety training, decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance, as well as the notification of recent pesticide applications, the use of protective equipment, and restrictions on reentry into fields where pesticides have been applied.

Top of Page

September 29, 2008

Tobacco Company To Pay $65,000 for Pesticide Misuse and Alleged Worker Safety Violations
EPA recently fined Vector Tobacco Inc. $65,040 for allegedly misusing six pesticides and failing to comply with federal pesticide worker safety laws. Vector Tobacco, a subsidiary of Vector Tobacco Group of Durham, NC, allegedly misused the pesticides Terramaster 4EC, Nemacur 3, Lorsban 4E, Prowl 3.3EC, Devrinol 50DF, and Ridomil Gold EC during their application at its agricultural research facility in Kekaha, Kauai, in 2005 and 2006. On 93 occasions, Vector Tobacco failed to follow label directions intended to protect workers from exposure to pesticides, in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

"Employers of agricultural workers must ensure their employees are provided with information and protections that minimize the risk of potential exposure to pesticides," said Katherine Taylor, Associate Director of the EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division for the Pacific Southwest region. "Failure to provide these necessary safeguards is considered a serious violation."

During the pesticide applications in 2005 and 2006, Vector Tobacco failed to provide its workers and pesticide handlers with required protective equipment, pesticide information, decontamination supplies, safety training, and notification that pesticides had been applied. These safeguards are required by the federal Worker Protection Standard, which aims to reduce the risk of pesticide injuries to agricultural workers. Vector Tobacco also failed to prevent workers from entering areas where pesticides had recently been applied, and subsequently denied them prompt transportation to a medical facility after these workers reported averse health effects due to the pesticide exposure.

The Hawaii Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during inspections performed in March and June of 2006. Worker complaints triggered the initial investigation. Since the inspections, Vector Tobacco has shut down the Kekaha facility.

Top of Page

June 30, 2008

EPA Files Complaint Against Nevada Company for Alleged Violations of Worker Protection Standard
EPA filed a complaint against Nevada Onion, an agricultural establishment, for the improper and unsafe use of registered pesticides, a violation of federal pesticide law. EPA is seeking up to $70,400 in civil penalties from Nevada Onion for 64 violations of the federal Worker Protection Standard. The Nevada Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during an August 2007 inspection. The inspection was initiated in response to reports of field workers seeking medical attention for significant injuries, allegedly resulting from pesticide exposure.

“Employers of agricultural workers must ensure that their employees are provided with information and safeguards that minimize their risk of pesticide exposure,” said Katherine A. Taylor, associate director for agriculture for EPA’s Communities and Ecosystems Division in the Pacific Southwest Region. “Failure to comply with any of these requirements is considered a serious violation that can endanger the health and safety of employees and others in the area.”

EPA alleges that Nevada Onion, located 61 Bowman Lane in Yerington, Nev., misused the pesticides Lannate LV, Champ Dry Prill, Dithane DF, Thiosperse, Thiolux, and Diatec II during numerous applications throughout 2007. Nevada Onion failed to comply with label directions requiring (1) that workers be notified of recent pesticide applications on particular fields to minimize the risk of exposure, and (2) that decontamination supplies be available to these workers in case exposure does occur.

The Worker Protection Standard, part of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, aims to protect worker health and the environment from exposure to pesticides through the strict enforcement of labeling requirements. The Standard contains requirements for the provision of pesticide safety training, decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance, as well as the notification of recent pesticide applications, the use of protective equipment, and restrictions on reentry into fields where pesticides have been applied.

Top of Page

February 1, 2007

EPA Applauds Victory in Case Against Puerto Rico Company for Pesticide Worker Safety Violations
EPA applauds a legal victory against Martex Farms, a Puerto Rico company, for violating the worker protection provisions of U.S. pesticide laws. The company has been ordered to pay a total penalty of $92,620, which is the second highest penalty ever assessed under EPA's worker protection standard, which is authorized by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

"This is an important legal win for EPA and a major step forward for environmental enforcement," said Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator for EPA's enforcement and compliance program. "We will continue enforcing EPA's regulations to protect agricultural workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticides."

On Jan. 19, EPA's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) office found Martex liable for 170 alleged violations of EPA's worker protection standards, and ruled that Martex failed to display specific pesticide application information for its agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, failed to provide them with decontamination materials, and failed to provide handlers with personal protective equipment.

The ALJ decision underscores EPA's position that failing to provide agricultural workers and pesticide handlers with specific pesticide application information on the same application constitutes separate, independent violations. In addition, this ruling reaffirms the requirement that every handler applying pesticides must be provided with personal protection equipment. In January 2005, EPA filed a complaint against Martex for improperly using pesticides and endangering worker safety. Martex Farms grows, processes, packs and ships tropical fruits and plants. The family-owned business was established in 1989, and employs hundreds of people at its numerous facilities in Puerto Rico.

EPA's worker protection standards are designed to reduce the risk of injury or illness to agricultural field workers resulting from exposure to pesticides. Agricultural workers may be injured from direct spray, drift or residue left by pesticide applications. Pesticide handlers face additional risks from spills, splashes, inhalation, and inadequate protective equipment.

FIFRA provides the basis for regulation, sale, distribution and use of pesticides in the United States. FIFRA authorizes EPA to review and register pesticides for specified uses. EPA also has the authority to suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide if subsequent information shows that continued use would pose unreasonable risks.

Top of Page

September 15, 2005

Pesticide Judgment Seen as Significant Ruling Supporting Future Worker Protection
The judgment last month of Administrative Law Judge Spencer T. Nissen in a case involving Petrocco Farms represents an important decision for the US Environmental Protection Agency because the amount of the penalty is significant, and the decision confirms worker protection standard enforcement under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Although Judge Nissen reduced the penalty sought by US EPA, the penalty still indicates that WPS violations are taken seriously. Mike Risner, Director of the Region 8 legal enforcement program, said, “EPA hopes that the substantial penalty the Judge assessed on the 220 violations will serve as a deterrent for potential future violations of these important standards to protect agricultural field workers.” Although EPA disagrees with some portions of the decision, EPA is not appealing the case. The Aug. 4 decision becomes final on Sept. 19. The Worker Protection Standard is designed to reduce the risk of illness or injury resulting from agricultural field workers occupational exposure to pesticides. The standard was phased in over several years with all provisions becoming effective April 15, 1994. Although assuring compliance with the standard has been a national priority for EPA, inspections have documented a high violation rate. Petrocco Farms had been cited for violations in 2001, and a 2002 re-inspection documented continuing violations. This case was the subject of an administrative hearing in April 2004.

Top of Page

June 21, 2005

EPA Settles Case Against Vegetable Farmer for Failing to Protect Field Workers from Pesticides
EPA settled a complaint against a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based lettuce farmer for allegedly failing to protect its employees working in fields in Olathe, Colo. from potentially harmful pesticidal exposure. EPA fined Cactus Produce, Inc. $4,730 for failing to provide required decontamination supplies and pesticide safety information to its employees working in lettuce fields in 2002. The company also failed to ensure that its workers were adequately trained in pesticide safety, and failed to provide information about recent pesticide applications to fields in which they worked. "Employers of agricultural workers must ensure their employees are provided with information and protections that minimize the risk and potential exposure to pesticides," said Enrique Manzanilla, EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division Director for the Pacific Southwest region. "Failure to provide these necessary safeguards is considered a serious violation."

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the worker protection standards aim to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The standards contains requirements for pesticide safety training, notification of pesticide applications, use of protective equipment, restrictions on reentry into fields where pesticides were applied, decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance. The complaint is based upon inspections done by the EPA's Colorado office in September 2002 and the Arizona Department of Agriculture's follow-up inspections in August 2003.

Top of Page

February 22, 2005

Three Companies Penalized for Pesticide Violations on Yakama Reservation
EPA announced administrative complaints filed against JSH Farms, Inc., Ag-Air Flying Services, Inc. and Yakama Land Enterprise for violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The complaints alleged violations in 2004 on the Yakama Indian Reservation in Washington State with proposed penalties totaling $12,480. “These violations are particularly disturbing because in two separate instances the pesticides landed on people,” said Mike Bussell, Director of EPA’s Regional Compliance and Enforcement Office. “Pesticide regulations are there to ensure proper use and prevent injury. Applicators need to be trained and follow the instructions on the label.”

EPA has jurisdiction over federal pesticide laws on Indian reservations. Elsewhere in the state, the primary responsibility lies with the Washington Department of Agriculture. Mr. Bussell goes on to state that “EPA considers compliance with pesticide regulations within the Reservation to be a high priority during the coming growing season. We will be working closely with the Yakama Tribal Pesticides Program to ensure proper pesticide use.”

The alleged violations for the three companies included:
JSH Farms, Inc. (Wapato, Washington): With proposed penalties of $1,680, the complaint alleges that JSH Farms:

Ag-Air Flying Services, Inc. (Granger, Washington): With proposed penalties of $3,120, the complaint alleges that Ag Air:

Yakama Land Enterprise (YLE), (Toppenish,Washington): With proposed penalties of $7,680 the complaint alleges that YLE:

Each company has 30 days after receiving the complaint to request a formal hearing to contest any fact or the appropriateness of the proposed penalty.

Top of Page

February 3, 2005

EPA Cites Martex for Failure to Protect Its Workers' Safety at Two Farms in Puerto Rico
EPA has filed a complaint against Martex Farms for violating the worker protection provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Martex owns numerous large commercial farms covering thousands of acres in Puerto Rico and has over 300 employees.

Martex, which in late 2003 had received several Notices of Warning for worker protection violations at its farms, was re-inspected by the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture and EPA inspectors in April 2004 as part of a large worker protection enforcement initiative in Puerto Rico. Violations found during the re-inspection included failure to post specific information regarding what kinds of pesticides are being applied where and when and failure to provide adequate decontamination supplies and protective equipment for Martex employees. EPA has filed a 338-count complaint against Martex for violating FIFRA's worker protection and safety requirements at its farms in Juaca and Coto Laurel and is seeking over $400,000 in civil penalties.

"We are committed to protecting agricultural employees from unnecessary exposure to pesticides," said Thomas V. Skinner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "Martex has failed to provide employees with the required protective equipment, decontamination supplies and information on the pesticides being applied."

"Pesticides are toxic, which is why they should be handled carefully and only used according to directions on the labels," said Kathleen C. Callahan, Acting EPA Region 2 Administrator. "This company cut corners and put its workers at risk." Martex Farms has the opportunity to plead its case before an administrative law judge or to contact EPA to negotiate an informal settlement of the matter.

Worker protection standards are designed to reduce poisoning and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. They regulate pesticide use and require that workers and pesticide handlers be given appropriate training, equipment and information. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that chemical workers suffer from high rates of illnesses commonly associated with chemical use. Tens of thousands of such illnesses are reported each year. Workers may be injured from direct spray, drift or residue left by pesticides applications; handlers face additional risks from spills, splashes, inhalation and inadequate protective equipment. Worker protection regulations protect the more than 3.5 million people who work with pesticides at over 500,000 workplaces. Among other requirements, agricultural employers are required to restrict entry to treated areas, provide notification of pesticide applications, post specific information regarding what kinds of pesticides are being applied where and when, assure that employees have received safety training, post safety information; provide decontamination supplies, and provide access to emergency assistance when needed.

Top of Page

June 5, 2003

EPA Cites Five Colorado Growers for Failing to Comply with the Agricultural Worker Protection Regulation - Largest Worker Protection Standard Penalty in EPA History Proposed for Case Involving Over 200 Pesticide Safety Violations
EPA issued administrative complaints against five Colorado growers June 3, 2003 for violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Acts (FIFRA) Worker Protection Standard (WPS), a regulation aimed at reducing the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers.

The Colorado growers include David Petrocco Farms, Inc., Brighton, Colo., Bauserman Farms, Inc., Manzanola, Colo., Dionisio Farms, Pueblo, Colo., Villano Brothers, Inc., Ft. Lupton, and MJ Farms, Inc., Commerce City, Colo. In the case of David Petrocco Farms, Inc., EPA is proposing a civil penalty of $231,990 for 229 violations of the WPS and FIFRA. This is the largest proposed federal WPS misuse penalty in EPA history.

"Environmental justice is one of the highest priorities for EPA's enforcement program, and this Agency will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are protected from harmful exposure to pesticides," said John Peter Suarez, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "The federal government will not tolerate growers who place their workers in harm's way because they fail to comply with the law."

David Petrocco Farms employs about 250 mostly seasonal workers and averages $12 million in annual sales. In 2001, David Petrocco Farms received a written warning notice from EPA documenting WPS violations that included not centrally displaying pesticide safety, emergency, and application information for its workers. In a follow-up inspection conducted in 2002, EPA inspectors found that the company still failed to post pesticide-specific application information about all the pesticides applied within the last 30 days in a central location accessible to all of their workers. Specific pesticide application information is crucial in obtaining the best medical care in case of emergency.

EPA also issued complaints on June 3, 2003 against the four other Colorado growers for violations that include failure to post emergency information in a central location and failure to post pesticide-specific application information in a central location. For the violations, EPA is proposing civil administrative penalties ranging from $2,200 to $23,320.The Colorado growers have 30 days to either pay the penalty or answer EPA's charges and request a hearing. They also may request an informal conference with EPA anytime to discuss the allegations.

WPS regulations are designed to reduce poisoning and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. They regulate pesticide use and require that workers and pesticide handlers be given appropriate training, equipment and information. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that agricultural workers suffer from high rates of illnesses commonly correlated with chemical usage. Tens of thousands of illnesses are reported each year. Workers may be injured from direct spray, drift or residue left by pesticides and handlers face additional risks from spills, splashes, inhalation or inadequate protective equipment.

The WPS offers protections to more than 3.5 million people who work with pesticides at over 560,000 workplaces. Specifically, growers are required to restrict entry to treated areas; provide notification of pesticide applications; post specific information regarding pesticide applications (what, where and when); assure that workers have received safety training; post safety information; provide decontamination supplies; and provide access to emergency assistance when needed.

State agencies generally have primary jurisdiction for enforcing WPS misuse violations. EPA, however, has primary jurisdiction in Wyoming and partial primary jurisdiction in Colorado. EPA will also prosecute cases referred to it by the States.

Top of Page

Florida

Top of Page

Illinois

Top of Page

Indiana

Top of Page

Maine

Top of Page

Minnesota

Top of Page

North Carolina

Top of Page

Oregon

Top of Page

This page is sponsored by EPA's Ag Center. Ag Center logo

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.