Volume 1, Number 1 Office of Regulatory Enforcement August 1998 

Pesticide Labels Must Warn 

Workers of Health Risks 

United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

EPA 300-N-98-004 

August 1998 

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

(2201A) 

○ ○ ○ ○

The Enforcement Alert is 

published periodically by 

EPA’s Office of Regulatory 

Enforcement. 

and educates the public 

and regulated community 

of important environmental 

enforcement issues, recent 

trends 

enforcement actions. 

This 

help 

community anticipate and 

prevent 

federal environmental law 

that could 

to enforcement action. 

See Page 2 for useful EPA 

Websites and additional 

resources. 

Eric V. Schaeffer 

Director, Office of 

Regulatory Enforcement 

In the complaint filed in October 

1994, EPA alleged that DuPont sold and 

distributed Bladex and Extrazine herbicides without the protective eyewear 

label warnings required by the WPS 

rule. 

DuPont sold these misbranded herbicides on 379 occasions after receiving 

a written Notice of Serious Error, which 

stated in bold upper case letters that 

DuPont “MUST NOT SELL OR DISTRIBUTE” the products. 

cost and pricing 

information obtained 

DuPont following the court order, EPA calculated that the 

company’s made 

more than $9.4 

million 

sales of the misbranded pesticides. 

In his decision, 

Kuhlmann found 

DuPont liable for all 379 violations alleged by EPA. 

mum penalty allowable under federal 

law, the udge ound 

“Respondent’s knowing violation of an 

agency order demonstrates a failure to 

exercise due care.” “[DuPont’s] culpability is established by its decision not 

to cease shipments of the Bladex and 

Extrazine products in April 1994 despite its receipt of the Notices of Serious Error on March 16 and 22, 1994.” 

Kuhlmann found that DuPont’s actions created the potential for serious 

continued on Page 2 

DuPont Penalized for 

Violating Worker 

Protection Standard rule 

Federal law requires that pesticide 

labels must warn workers of risks and 

protections that must be taken when 

applying the product. 

In a landmark decision issued April 

30, 1998, an Environmental Protection 

Agency judge imposed the largest 

administrative 

penalty 

Agency’s history 

against E.I. DuPont 

de Nemours & Co. 

(“DuPont”) for violating 

quirements. 

EPA Administrative Law Judge Edward J. Kuhlmann 

ordered DuPont to 

pay $1.89 million 

for ignoring EPA 

orders to stop shipping pesticides with labels that omitted protective eyewear warnings required by the Worker Protection Standard rule (“WPS rule”). The WPS rule 

was enacted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(“FIFRA”) in August 1992 to reduce 

the number of pesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural 

workers from on the job pesticide exposures. 

Agency determined that protective 

eyewear and other simple safety measures would “reduce substantially the 

number of pesticide-related illnesses 

and injuries to agricultural employees.” 

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/enfalert 

○ ○

EnforcementAlert 

EnforcementAlert 

WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES: 

Section 12(a)(1)(E) of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C, §136j, 

prohibits the sale or distribution of misbranded 

pesticides. 

FIFRA §2(q)(1)(G) defines a pesticide as 

misbranded “if the does not contain a warning or a 

caution statement which may be necessary and if 

complied with... is adequate to protect health and 

the environment.” 

The Worker Protection Standard rule, 57 Fed. 

Reg. 38102 (1992) (codified at 40 C.F.R., Parts 156 

and 170) stipulates that protective eyewear and 

other early entry personal protective equipment are 

necessary to lessen “unreasonable risks” to 

agricultural workers from on the job pesticide 

exposures. 

ABOUT 

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

It informs 

and significant 

information should 

the regulated 

violations of 

otherwise lead 

The complaint charged that 

In assessing the maxiJ f

in the 

these reIn publishing the rule, the 

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Based on 

from 

from 

Judge 

that 
EnforcementAlert

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

2201A

Washington, D.C. 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulk Rate

Postage and Fees Paid

EPA

Permit No. G-35

Recycled/Recyclable

Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that

contains at least 50% recycled fiber

Editor: Virginia Bueno, (202) 564-8684.

bueno.virginia@epamail.epa.gov.

Layout & design: eaver,

weaver.sarah@epamail.epa.gov.

harm to human health and the environment, stating that “[a]ctions like those

taken by Respondent in this case --

shipping pesticides with labels found

by the Agency to contain serious errors

after being expressly told not to do so -

- interfere with the Agency’s ability to

carry out its statutory mandate to protect human health and the environment

and thus present a clear threat to the

FIFRA regulatory scheme.” DuPont’s

actions “created the potential for serious or widespread harm to human

health and the environment by preventing achievement of the basic goals of

the WPS and FIFRA,” Kuhlmann added.

In addition to the record penalty, this

was the first case to be tried under the

WPS rule. When publishing the rule,

EPA estimated that tens of thousands

of agricultural workers were experiencing acute illness and injuries each year

as the result of occupational exposures

to pesticides. The Agency estimates that

more than 3.5 million farmworkers and

other pesticide handlers should be receiving protection today because of the

WPS rule.

CASE HIGHLIGHTS:

• This is the first court decision involving

the new FIFRA Worker Protection

Standard rule.

• Citing Johnson-Pacific and Sav-Mart,

Judge Kuhlmann noted in his decision

that FIFRA penalties are designed to

“deter future violations” and that such

deterrence includes “recovery of

economic benefit” to take “away the

economic incentive to violate the law.”

• Judge Kuhlmann concluded that

DuPont’s defiance of EPA orders, the

harm to the EPA’s regulatory program

and the $9.4 million profit enjoyed by

DuPont were reasonable bases for his

sweeping decision.

For more information contact:

Mark Garvey, (202) 564-4168 or

Robert Darnell, (202) 564-4176.

Useful Websites

EPA HOMEPAGE

http://www.epa.gov/epahome

OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE (OECA)

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/index.html

OFFICE OF REGULATORY

ENFORCEMENT (ORE)

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore.html

ORE’S OFFICE OF TOXICS &

PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT

DIVISION

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/tped/

OFFICE OF PESTICIDES,

PREVENTION AND TOXIC

SUBSTANCES (OPPT)

http://www.epa.gov/internet/oppts/

OPPT’S OFFICE OF PESTICIDE

PROGRAMS

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

OPPT’S PESTICIDE APPLICATOR

AND WORKER SAFETY

HOMEPAGE: http://www.epa.gov/

oppfead1/work_saf/

NATIONAL AGRICULTURE

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

CENTER

http://www.ine.gov/oeca/aghmpg.html

NATIONAL CENTER FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS

AND INFORMATION (NCEPI)

CATALOG:

http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/

catalog.html

EnforcementAlert

EnforcementAlert

EPA’s Audit Policy

EPA’s Audit Policy reduces

and, in some cases, eliminates

penalties for companies that

voluntarily disclose and

correct violations of federal

law. For more information

about the Audit Policy, see

EPA’s Audit PolicyWebsite at:

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/

auditpol.html.

Sarah W