# Agency Data

2004



# 2005 Annual Report

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking

Review Panel

December 2005 

# PIRT

# PIRT Review Panel Representatives

We wish to acknowledge and thank our panel representatives for their contributions:



# Chair

Maryanne Guichard, Washington State Department of Health



# Coordinator

Lucy Harter, Washington State Department of Health



# Members

Ann Wick, Washington State Department of Agriculture

Maria Victoria Peeler, Washington State Department of Ecology

Vacant, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Dorothy Tibbetts, Washington State Department of Health

Gabrielle Toutonghi, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

Karen Ripley, Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Alice Larson, PhD, General Public

Steve Gilbert, PhD, DABT, Practicing Toxicologist

Matthew Keifer, MD, MPH, University of Washington

William Robertson, MD, Washington Poison Center

Allan Felsot, PhD, Washington State University

# Pesticide Incident Reporting and

Tracking Review Panel

Annual Report

A report to the legislature as required by Chapter 380, Laws of 1989, and RCW 70.104.



# December 2005

DOH 333-175 December 2005

To obtain copies or for additional information, see www.doh.wa.gov/pesticidecontact.

Th is annual report is available online at www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/EnvironmentalHealth/Pesticides.aspx.

Report suspected pestic ide-rel ated illness to the Wa shington State Department of Health at

1

- 8 77-485-7316 or the Washington Poison Center at 1-800-222-1222

.

For people with disabilities, this document is available on request in other formats. To submit a request, please call 1-800-525-0127 (TDD/TTY call 711).

# Agency Contacts

Contacts for agencies whose pesticide-related data constitute the basis for this report.

Washington State Department of Agriculture

Ann Wick _________________________________________________ 360.902.2051

Washington State Department of Ecology

Maria Victoria Peeler ________________________________________ 360.407.6704

Washington State Department of Health

Dorothy Tibbetts ___________________________________________ 360.236. 3361

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

Gabrielle Toutonghi _________________________________________ 360.902.5478

Washington Poison Center

William Robertson, MD ______________________________________ 206.517.2356

# Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Combined Agency Data ________________________________________________ 1

PIRT Panel Activities and Highlighted Issues for 2005 _________________________ 2

Summary Data for PIRT Agencies ________________________________________ 2

Introduction 7

PIRT Panel Activities 13

Agriculture 23

Background ________________________________________________________ 23

Complaints _________________________________________________________ 23

Violations __________________________________________________________ 26

Agricultural Complaints ________________________________________________ 29

Non-Agricultural Complaints ____________________________________________ 30

Children ___________________________________________________________ 31

Severity of Reported Complaints ________________________________________ 31

Type of Pesticide Involved _____________________________________________ 33

Enforcement Actions _________________________________________________ 34

Other Agencies Involved ______________________________________________ 35

WSDA Prevention Activities 2004 and 2005 ________________________________ 35

Ecology 39

Background ________________________________________________________ 39

Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program: Pesticide Incidents ______ 39

Toxics Cleanup Program: Contaminated Sites Containing Pesticides ____________ 41

Water Quality Program: Aquatic Pesticide Permit ___________________________ 41

Surface Water Monitoring ______________________________________________ 44

Health 45

Background ________________________________________________________ 45

Sources of Case Reports ______________________________________________ 45

Classification of Investigated Cases ______________________________________ 46

Severity of Medical Outcome ___________________________________________ 48

Number and Location of Investigated Cases _______________________________ 50

Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness ____________________________ 53

i

## Agricultural Pesticide Incidents __________________________________________ 54

Non-Agricultural Pesticide Incidents ______________________________________ 60

Grandview Pesticide Fire ______________________________________________ 63

Highlights of DOH Prevention Activities 2005 _______________________________ 65

Labor and Industries 69

Background ________________________________________________________ 69

WISHA Services Division ______________________________________________ 71

L&I Claims Insurance Services Division, Claims Administration Program _________ 75

Washington Poison Center 79

Background ________________________________________________________ 79

Human Exposure Calls ________________________________________________ 79

WPC Human Exposure Calls Reported to Department of Health ________________ 80

Type of Pesticides Involved in WPC Human Exposure Calls ___________________ 81

Severity of Human Exposures to Pesticides ________________________________ 83

Appendix A – PIRT Review Panel 85

Pesticides - Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090 __________________________ 87

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Trac king (PIRT) Panel Representatives _________ 88

Pesticide Incident Definition ____________________________________________ 89

Primary Agency Respon sibilities Related to Pesticide Exposure ________________ 90

Agency Response Time Mandates _______________________________________ 92

Appendix B – Case and Severity Classifications 93

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications _______________ 95

NIOSH Severity Cl assifications _________________________________________ 97

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category ________________________________ 98

Appendix C – Agency Data Summaries 101

Washington State Departm ent of Agriculture ______________________________ 103

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program ____________________ 147

Washington State Department of Health _________________________________ 153

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, WISHA _______________ 183

Appendix D – License Types and En forcement Action Definitions 191

Washington State Department of Agri culture, Pesticide License Types__________ 193

Washington State Department of Agricult ure, Enforcement Action Definitions ____ 195

Appendix E 197

Washington State Department of Ecology, Maps___________________________ 197

ii

## Appendix F 203

PIRT Letter to WSDA ________________________________________________ 203

Appendix G 207

DOH Comments on Metam-sodium _____________________________________ 207

iii

# List of Acronyms

DPP Definitely, Probably or Possibly

DOH Washington State Department of Health

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

L&I Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

PCO Pest Control Operator

PIRT Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking

RCW Revised Code of Washington

SPI Structural Pest Inspection

UPEST Urban Pesticide Education Strategy Team

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDO Wood Destroying Organism

WISHA Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act

WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture

WPC Washington Poison Center

WPS Worker Protection Standard

iv

# Executive Summary

The annual report summarizes pesticide incidence data collected by agencies during

2004 and activities of the PIRT Review Panel for 2005.

The Pesticide Incident Reporting and Trac king (PIRT) Review Panel was created
by RCW 70.104.090 to monitor pesticide- related incidents that have suspected

health or environmental effects. Members of the Panel include representatives of
six agencies that respond to statewide incidents, two university members, a
practicing toxicologist and a member of the public appointed by the Governor
(Appendix A).

Member agencies conduct pesticide incident investigations in accordance with
their specific statutory responsibilities and report findings to the Panel for

evaluation. The Panel submits an annual r eport summarizing pesticide incidents
to the legislature. This 2005 report presents individual and combined agency
data for 2004 and a summary of the activi ties of the Panel and agencies for

2005.



# Combined Agency Data

The overlap in pesticide-related cases between agencies for 2004 is displayed in
Table 1. The shaded cells show the total number of incidents reported to the
Panel by each agency. The white cells show the numbers of incidents that
overlap for the agencies represented by the cell. Where two numbers appear in
the cells, the first number represents the number of events and the second
number represents the number of people involved.

Table 1. Overlap of Pesticide-Related Events* by Agency, 2004

WSDA Ecology DOH L&I WISHA WPC

WSDA 200 2 16/30 1 2 1

Ecology 2 29 2/9 1 - -

DOH 16/30 2/9 245/269 101 2 150

L&I Claims 1 1 101 101 1 21

WISHA 2 - 2 1 43 -

WPC 1 - 150 21 - 2342

* Events include WSDA complaints by event, Ec ology complaints by event, DOH incidents by

people involved, L&I claims by people involved, L&I WISHA inspections by employer, and WPC calls by people involved. Where two numbers appea r, the first number represents events and the second number represents people involved.



## It is difficult to aggregate PIRT data be cause each agency collects a different
type of data. For example, data from th e Ecology Spills Program includes both

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 1

## actual environmental contamination and calls from concerned neighbors about
the possible illegal use of pesticides that turn out to be legal. Data from
Washington Poison Center (WPC) includes calls about human exposures with
and without associated illness. Washingt on State Department of Agriculture
(WSDA) data include actual violations, ca ses of crop damage, complaints about
inadequate pest control inspections, and problems with licensing of pesticide
applicators.



# PIRT Panel Activities a nd Highlighted Issues for 2005

The Panel made ten recommendations for Panel action and member agency
action for 2005. Ongoing, mandated recommendations include review of member
agencies’ independent strategies to reduce pesticide incidents based on
combined PIRT data, and reporting on product labels that are inadequate or
unclear. Issues monitored by the Panel in 2005 include West Nile virus,
cholinesterase monitoring, the Worker Protection Standard, and the proposed

modification to the General Pesticide Ru les concerning notification of certain
pesticide applications.

Cholinesterase Monitoring

The Cholinesterase Monitoring Rule (Chapter 296-148 WAC) was implemented
in February 2004. Based on the final report, Cholinesterase Monitoring of
Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2005 , 2263 workers participated in the
cholinesterase monitoring program during 2005. A baseline test was performed
for each enrolled worker. A total of 904 periodic tests were performed for 611
workers who had reached the pesticide-handling hour threshold for 30 hours in
30 consecutive days. A total of 59 alerts we re issued to workers at the workplace

evaluation level and 10 to workers at the workplace removal level. Overall, the
data indicate that 9.6 percent of enro lled workers had cholinesterase depression
at the time of periodic testing during 2005.

Department of Agriculture Proposed Rule – PIRT Letter of Support

The Panel wrote a letter to WSDA in sup port of the proposed modification to the
General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228. The proposed changes require
notification of the application of highly toxi c or corrosive pesticides via aerial, air
blast, outdoor fumigation or overhea d chemigation applications when the
application site and the property boundaries touch and the application is within
one-half mile of schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and adult and child day care

centers.



# Summary Data for PIRT Agencies

The following agency summaries identify key points from the analysis of 2004
pesticide incident data.

Department of Agriculture

In 2004, WSDA investigated 200 pesticide-re lated complaints. After investigation
it was determined that 110 (55%) involv ed pesticide applications. The other

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 2

## complaints concerned such issues as improper licenses and Wood Destroying
Organism inspections. Sixty-four (32%) complaints were the result of pesticide
drift to property and 22 (11%) concerned drift to humans. Of the 200 complaints,
122 (61%) involved one or more violations. This is consistent with previous
years. Thirty-six (30%) of the violatio ns involved commercial applicators.

Department of Ecology

In 2004, Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) investigated 29
pesticide-related complaints involving threats to air, water, or soil. Ten complaints
concerned threats to ground or surface water, 10 involved spills or fires, and 6
involved pesticide disposal or waste concerns. Ecology is responsible for
oversight of contaminated areas requiring cleanup or monitoring. During 2004,
Ecology placed 11 new pesticide-cont aminated sites on the Toxic Cleanup
Program list.

Department of Health

In 2004, Washington State Department of Health (DOH) investigated 245
pesticide incidents involving 269 individuals. Of the 269 illnesses/injuries, 204
(76%) were classified as definitely, probably or possibly (DPP) related to
pesticide exposure. Sixty-four (31%) of the 2004 DPP cases were related to
agriculture. Agricultural cases most often involved the tree fruit industry (41).
Most agricultural cases involved agricultural workers (53); 36 of the 53 workers
were handling pesticides at the time of their exposure. Only 37 of the 140 nonagricultural cases were working at the time of their exposure; 14 of the 37
workers were handling pesticides. Of t he 103 non-occupational, non-agricultural
cases, 89 (86%) occurred in homes.

Department of Labor and Industries

In 2004, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) Washington
Industrial Safety and Health Act (WI SHA) Services Division conducted 43
pesticide-related safety and health inspec tions. Eighteen (42%) of the inspections
resulted in general or serious citations being issued to the employer and 25
inspections did not involve citations.

In 2004, the L&I Insurance Services Division, Claims Administration Program
received 101 claims relating to pestici de illness. Of the 101 claims, 73 (72%)
were related to agriculture and 28 were non-agricultural. Of the 101 claims, 70
claims were classified as medical only/non-compensable, 4 were time loss, 26
were rejected and 1 had an uncertain status. Fifty-three of the workers were
handling pesticides at the time of t heir exposure. DOH investigated the 101
claims and classified 69 (68%) as having signs or symptoms definitely, probably
or possibly related to the pesticide exposure.

Washington Poison Center

In 2004, Washington Poison Center (WPC) provided immediate professional
medical advice regarding pesticide-re lated questions and emergencies to 2342

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 3

## callers. Of the 2342 calls, 1302 involved insecticides and 155 involved insect
repellents. Herbicides were involved in 422 of the calls. The caller reported at
least a minor health effect in 218 of the 2342 calls. DOH followed-up on 305 calls
where the caller sought medical care and where the exposure was not part of a
suicidal gesture.

Summary Data

Table 2 summarizes 2004 pesticide-related data for each agency. Pesticiderelated data from each agency are described in detail in the following Agency
Summary Reports. Individual incident desc riptions are provided in Appendix C.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 4

## Table 2. Agency Summaries of Pesticide Events, 2004

Department of Agriculture 200 Complaints Resulting in 122 Violations

Complaints 200 Violations 122

Location of Complaint Violations by Type of Activity Eastern Washington 117 Agriculture 42 Western Washington 82 Commercial/industrial 17

Out-of-State 1 PCO/WDO 22 Residential (homeowners) 5

Enforcement Actions* 125 Right-of-way 5 Notice of correction (NOC) 98 Other (license/records) 31 Notice of intent/Admin action (NOI) 20 Advisory letter/Warning letter 4 License Involved with Violations 122

Referred 2 Commercial applicator 36 Verbal warning 1 Unlicensed 36

No action indicated 76 Private applicator 22 Public operator 13

* One case had 2 actions. Other (SPI, Dealer, Consultant) 15

Department of Health 245 Incidents Involving 269 Individual Cases

Type of Incident 245 Classification of Cases 269

Agriculture 92 Definite 63

Residential 108 Probable 55

Commercial/Industrial 20 Possible 86

Other 25 Suspicious 11 Unlikely 16

Insufficient information 38

Childhood Cases ≤ 18 years old 34 Definite, Probable or Possible Cases 204 Definite, probably or possible cases 22 Agriculture 64 Non-Agriculture 140

Department of Labor and Industries 43 Industrial Safety and Health Inspections 101 Worker Compensation Claims

Pesticide-related Inspections 43 Worker Compensation Claims 101

Serious and/or General Citations 18 Agriculture 73

No citations 25 Non-Agriculture 28

Type of Business 43 Benefits 101

Orchard 28 Accepted – Medical/time loss 74 Vineyard 2 Rejected 26

Seeds 2 Pending 1 Berry 4

Other farm 7

Department of Ecology 29 Pesticide Complaints

Threats to ground or surface water 10 Spills or fires 10 Pesticide disposal or waste concerns 6 Unsafe pesticide storage or handling 3

Washington Poison Center 2342 Human Exposure Pesticide-Related Calls

Referred to DOH for follow-up 305

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 5

# Introduction

Created in 1990, PIRT Review Panel continues to protect citizens against pesticide exposure through the understanding of incident causes and by developing prevention strategies.

The Pesticide Incident Reporting and Trac king (PIRT) Review Panel was created
by RCW 70.104.090 to monitor pesticide- related incidents that have suspected
health or environmental effects. The Panel consists of representatives of
Washington State Departments of Agri culture, Ecology, Health, Labor and

Industries, Natural Resources, and Fish and Wildlife, representatives of the
University of Washington, Washington State University, and Washington Poison
Center, a practicing toxicologist, and a member of the public (Appendix A).

Member agencies conduct pesticide incident investigations in accordance with
their specific statutory responsibilities and report findings to the Panel for
evaluation. The Panel is mandated to perform the following activities:

• Centralize the receipt of information regarding pesticide complaints and
their investigations and monitor timeliness of agencies’ response to
complainants.

• Review and make recommendations for procedures for investigation of
pesticide incidents.

• Identify inadequacies of pesticide regulations to protect public health.

• Submit an annual report summarizing pesticide incidents to the
legislature.

The Panel has no regulatory authority but acts in an oversight capacity to the six
agencies and makes recommendations to t he agencies, to the legislature, and to

the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This 2005 report is the Panel’s fifteenth annual report. It summarizes pesticiderelated incident reports, complaints or calls to WSDA, DOH, Ecology, L&I, and
WPC. The report:

• Provides analyses of each agency’s incidents and follow-up activities for

2004.

• Describes Panel and member agency activities for 2005.

• Describes how pesticide-related calls, complaints, incidents, and
investigations overlap between agencies.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 7

## Combined Agency Data

The number of incidents reported to agencies and calls made to WPC for the
years 2000 – 2004 are listed in Table 3. There is not a consistent increase or
decrease in the number of reported pestic ide-related incidents across agencies.
WSDA complaints were elevated in 2002, but are back to earlier levels in 2004.
DOH cases have leveled out after a spike in 2000. In 2004, the number of L&I
pesticide-related claims dropped to the low level seen in 2002 while the number
of pesticide-related calls to WPC increased by 21% from 2003 to 2004.

Table 3. Pesticide Incidents Reporte d to Agencies and WPC, 2000 - 2004

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

WSDA Complaints 199 225 255 222 200

Ecology Complaints 63 35 46 33 29

DOH Incidents

DOH Cases 302

388 200

250 216

270 242

275 245

269

WISHA Inspections 34 27 64 22 43

L&I Claims 180 129 109 133 101

WPC Calls 2326 2171 2043 1937 2342



## Overlap of Pesticide-related Events by Agency

Each agency’s responsibility for responding to reports of pesticide-related

incidents is outlined as follows:

• WSDA investigates complaints about misuse or misapplication, licensing,
and structural inspections. WSDA enforces the language on pesticide

labels and coordinates with L&I WISHA to enforce the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) for agricultural workers.

• Ecology investigates and enforces re mediation of incidents involving
spills or environmental contamination by pesticides.

• DOH investigates reported cases of suspected pesticide-related illness.

• L&I WISHA conducts safety and health workplace inspections in
agriculture/industry and investigates employee complaints and referrals
from agencies and others. WISHA enforces the WPS for agricultural
workers with WSDA and other workplace safety rules.

• L&I Claims Insurance Services Division adjudicates and administers
worker compensation insurance claims related to pesticide exposures.

• WPC provides information and medical advice to the public and to health
care providers who call about pesticides.

Pesticide-related cases are referred betwe en PIRT agencies when appropriate.
For instance, if a WSDA investigation into a pesticide label violation finds a

worker who was ill, the case is referred to DOH. If a DOH investigation finds a

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 8

## label or safety violation, it is referred to WSDA or L&I WISHA. L&I claims related
to pesticide-exposure are reported to DOH. These referrals result in overlapping
agency data for cases involving pesticide-related illness.

As the state agency responsible for in vestigating cases of pesticide-related
illness, DOH has formal arrangements with L&I, WSDA, and WPC to receive
reports of suspected pesticide-related illnesses and injuries. With these
arrangements, DOH data are the most re flective of human pesticide-related

illness in the state.

Aggregation of PIRT Data

The overlap in pesticide-rel ated cases between agencies for 2004 is illustrated in
Table 4 and Figure 1. The shaded cells in Table 4 show the total number of
incidents reported to PIRT by each agency . The white cells indicate the numbers
of incidents reported by multiple agen cies. Where two numbers appear in the
cells, the first number represents the number of events and the second number
represents the number of people involved. For example, WSDA responded to
200 complaints about incidents involving a pesticide application. Sixteen of these
incidents involved 30 human illnesses and were co-investigated by DOH, 2 were
investigated by the Ecology Spill Response Program, 1 involved a worker who

filed an L&I claim and 1 involved a call to WPC.

It is difficult to aggregate PIRT data be cause each agency collects a different
type of data. For example, Ecology Sp ills Program data include information on

actual environmental contamination and on calls from concerned neighbors
about pesticide use that turned out to be l egal after investigation. Data from WPC
includes calls about human exposures with and without associated illness.
WSDA data include actual violations, cases of crop damage, complaints about
inadequate pest control inspections, and problems with licensing of pesticide
applicators.

Table 4. Overlap of Pesticide-Related Events* by Agency, 2004

WSDA Ecology DOH L&I WISHA WPC

WSDA 200 2 16/30 1 2 1

Ecology 2 29 2/9 1 - -

DOH 16/30 2/9 245/269 101 2 150

L&I Claims 1 1 101 101 1 21

WISHA 2 - 2 1 43 -

WPC 1 - 150 21 - 2342

* Events include WSDA complaints by event, Ec ology complaints by event, DOH incidents by

people involved, L&I claims by people involved, L&I WISHA inspections by employer, and WPC calls by people involved. Where two numbers appea r, the first number represents events and the second number represents people involved.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 9

## Figure 1 illustrates how the PIRT agency dat asets overlap for 2004. The figure is
not drawn to scale. The WPC circle is very large as it indicates the number of

calls concerning pesticides, not the number of actual human exposures.

Figure 1. Overlap of PIRT Member Agencies Pesticide Related Events, 2004

L&I WISHA

workplace

safety

investigations

(43).

WSDA

pesticide and

pest control

complaints

(200).

Ecology

Spills

Program

complaints

(29). WPC calls

about

pesticides

(2342).

L&I insurance

claims that

mentioned a

pesticide

exposure

(101).

DOH

investigations

of reported

illness (245). WSDA L&I WPC

DOH WISHA

ECY



## Strengths and Limitations of PIRT Data

The strengths and limitations of PIRT da ta were discussed in depth in the 2004
Annual Report(pages 21-26). The limitations of state comparisons of pesticiderelated illnesses are al so discussed in the 2004 Annual Report . The 2004 Annual
Report is available on the PIRT Web site at
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/PIRT/pubs-pirt.htm.

PIRT Report to Senate Agriculture Committee

Panel members presented information on PIRT activities and current pesticide
issues to the Senate Agriculture Committee on January 27, 2005.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 10

## Agency Response Times

Revised Code of Washington 70.104.080 (Appendix A) specifically directs the
PIRT Review Panel to monitor agency response time to pesticide-related
incidents for the departments of Agriculture, Health, and Labor and Industries.
Response time is defined as the interval between initial report of an incident and
an agency’s first response to the report. The first response may be a phone call,
a request for medical or spray records or other agency action. Agency response

times for 2004 are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Agency Response Times, 2004

Agency Mandates Agency Response Times

Agriculture

• Immediate response when complaints

involve humans or animals • All other complaint investigations must be

initiated within 48 hours • 100% of human exposure cases

within 24 hours

• 79% of all cases within 24 hours

Health

• Hospital admission, death, or threat to public health within 24 hours

• All others within 48 hours • All 4 severe reports within 24 hours

• 94% within 48 hours

Labor and Industries (WISHA)

• Serious complaints within 30 days • All others within 120 days • Majority within 30 days • All within 120 days

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 11

# PIRT Panel Activities

The PIRT Annual Report summarizes the activities of the PIRT Review Panel and member agencies for 2005.



# Background

The PIRT Review Panel met nine times in 2005. The Panel monitored each
agency’s response time to incidents (see Combined Agency Data, page 8),
monitored actions stemming from recommendations made in previous years,
analyzed incident data to identify trends and patterns of problems related to
pesticides, and responded to requests for special activities from the panel

members.

The Panel made the following recommendations for Panel action and member
agency action for 2005.



# Recommendations to the PIRT Review Panel and Member Agencies for 2005

Recommendation 1 PIRT Review Panel and member agencies will initiate
action on findings from the DOH investigations into
underreporting of pesticide-related illnesses.

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts

Department of Health

The investigation into underreporting of pesticide-related illnesses recommended
continuing efforts to improve reporting of pesticide-related illness by health care
providers. See the full report, Improving Data Quality in Pesticide Illness

Surveillance, at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/eha_publications.htm.
Reporting is likely to improve if health care providers are aware of the purpose
and outcomes of their reporting. To this end, DOH re-instituted the practice of
sending Pesticide Incident Summary Re ports to health care providers who
referred cases to DOH. Summary reports provide information obtained during the
DOH investigation of the case. Summary reports for 2000-2003 cases were
mailed to health care providers in April 2005 and reports for 2004 cases were
mailed in October 2005. Summary reports were also mailed to local health
jurisdiction health officers and environmental health directors.

In addition to the case summaries, each packet contained information on the
pesticide-illness reporting requirement and a flyer on reporting, suitable for
posting as a reminder to busy medical personnel. The flyer stressed that
suspected pesticide-related illness or in jury should be reported. The packets

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 13

## contained information about the Pesticide Program and the classification system
used by DOH to determine the likelihood that the symptoms reported were
caused by a pesticide exposure. They also contained a link to the DOH Pesticide
Program Web site with new Web pages spec ifically for health care providers at
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pest-hcp-info.htm

.
Copies of the EPA publication Recognition and Management of Pesticide Illness

were offered upon request. The 2004 Pesticide Incident Summary Report
packets also included feedback cards to a ssist DOH in evaluating the usefulness
of the reports and to measure knowledge about the reporting requirement among
health care providers and local health officials. For the 2004 cases, summary
reports were mailed to 259 health care providers, 34 environmental health
directors, and 24 health officers. Ninety-t hree (36%) of the evaluation cards were
returned. Most (62%) of the 93 responses were from health care providers, 12%
were from local health officials, and for 26% of the responses it was unknown
whether they were from providers or local health officials.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the evaluation responses.

Table 6. Responses to Evaluation Forms Sent to Health Care Providers,

Health Officers and Environm ental Health Directors, 2005

Yes No

Was this mailing useful to you? 85 (93%) 6 (7%)

Did you know that suspected pes ticide illnesses or injuries are reportable? 48 (53%) 43 (47%)

Would you like a copy of the clinical manual Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings? 64 (70%) 27 (30%)

Would you like to receive future PISRs by email? 36 (40%) 54 (60%)



## Another recommendation from the report was to develop alternative means of
reporting potential pesticide illness cases to reduce the time and effort required.
During 2005, significant progress was m ade in instituting a system for the
electronic transfer of repo rts of possible pesticide illn ess from WPC to DOH and

from L&I to DOH.

Washington Poison Center and Department of Health

In 2004, WPC collaborated with DOH and t he University of Washington Clinical
Informatics Research Group to develop a system for automated selection of
WPC call records that meet DOH reporti ng criteria. Using the University of
Washington extraction routine and a secure f ile transfer mechanism, files with all
pertinent reports are now automatically s ent from WPC’s Toxicall data system to
DOH’s Pesticide Program every 24 hou rs. DOH Pesticide Program staff
members then use a record review system, the Pesticide Illness Electronic
Reporting System, to upload and view the reports from WPC. Daily transfer of
reports began in December, 2004. The syst em underwent testing through March,

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 14

## 2005. During testing, reports continued to be faxed concurrently with electronic
reports. The sensitivity and specificity of the automated case selection criteria

were evaluated. Inconsistencies were det ected and resolved. With testing of the
transfer protocol completed, WPC discontinued faxing reports in April, 2005.

Labor and Industries and Department of Health

L&I and DOH also collaborated on a system for the electronic reporting of
pesticide illness. L&I transf ers weekly claims data to the DOH secure server.
DOH downloads the cases for viewing and case ascertainment. The process was
completed in February and paper reports were discontinued in March. The
Pesticide Incident Electronic Reporting System will be upgraded to allow for
review and storage of these repo rts in the system database.

Other Electronic Reporting Projects

DOH and Washington Environmental Pub lic Health Tracking Network are
currently exploring the feasibility and useful ness of obtaining electronic reports of
pesticide illness cases from Inland Northwest Health Services Emergency
Departments. A retrospective review of data from Inland Northwest Services
databases for records with pesticide-related ICD-9 CM codes has been planned.
The review will provide information about: a) whether this method of obtaining
reports will increase t he completeness and time liness of pesticide illness
reporting, and b) what would be requi red institutionally and technically to
automatically provide these data to DOH.

Recommendation 2 DOH will revise and implement its data collection tool
for identifying cause. DOH will report to PIRT on the
progress of this project.

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts

During 2005, DOH evaluated the feasibi lity of revising questions on the data

collection instrument to better solicit in formation that could be used to prevent

future incidents. The DOH data collection instrument contained two sets of
prevention/intervention questions. One set included questions relating to the
WPS. DOH reviewed the WPS questions, and determined that, given the
limitation of the interview proc ess, it is difficult to elicit quality information in this
context. The second set of questions was developed for the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and included questions on how the
exposure could have been prevented. DOH revised these questions to obtain

better information.

In July of 2005, DOH received funds fr om NIOSH to conduct a 5-year study

entitled Identifying Preventable Causes of Pesticide-related Illness Among

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 15

## Agricultural Workers. This project will enable DOH to more effectively identify
preventable causes of illness and injury.

The project will identify and track existi ng pesticide risks to workers in the
agricultural sector by expanding DOH case investigations and analysis of
specific, common exposure scenarios. These include drift, exposures due to
inadequate personal protective equipment practices, and the adequacy of WPS
training. DOH will use the information derived from this effort to critically evaluate
the adequacy of existing programs a nd policies, and to modify and expand
current outreach efforts to address ga ps in our prevention activities.

The specific objectives of this effort include the following:

• Critically assess the capability of the current data collection process for
capturing the information needed to address specific areas of concern
(for example, drift exposures; ex posures due to inadequate personal
protective equipment practices)

• Identify and develop necessary change s to the data collection process
and data systems

• Expand analysis of collected data on specific areas of concern

• Develop, implement, and evaluate new prevention activities or
modifications to current prevention activities based on the information
generated with this effort

Data collection and data analysis strat egies will identify root causes of
occupational accidents resulting in pesticide illness by asking why events

occurred or conditions existed. Inte rvention strategies will include policy
recommendations to state and federal agencies and direct outreach to
agricultural workers. Prevention messages will be incorporated into existing DOH

outreach and education activities.

Recommendation 3 PIRT will obtain and review data from WSDA and other
sources to evaluate Washington Schools’ compliance
with tracking and pesticide usage requirements,
including requirements pertaining to 1) central
collection of annual pesticide use reports, and 2)
dissemination of information about tracking
requirements and tracking tools to school districts.

Lead: Steve Gilbert

Action recommendation 3 was carried forward to 2006.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 16

## Recommendation 4 PIRT will review the R eport on the National
Assessment of EPA’s Worker Protection Program and
findings from Matt Keifer and Rich Fenske’s University
of Washington Pesticide and Public Health class
regarding the adequacy of this rule to determine
relevance for WPS implementation in Washington
State. Additionally, the Pane l will discuss future action
that it might undertake.

Lead: Gabrielle Toutonghi

At the October, 2005, PIRT meeting, Allan Welch of EPA Region 10, presented

information from EPA’s National Assessment of the Worker Safety Program . The
presentation focused on potential regulatory changes to the WPS (40 CFR Part
170). Potential changes include:

• Strengthening the worker training provisions including content, grace
period, retraining interval, trainer re quirements, and verification system.

• Establishing a hazard communication program for workers including
training and field notification and possible changes to the central posting
requirements.

• Reconsidering the retaliation provisions of the WPS.

• Expanding the scope of the applicator rules to include all individuals that
mix, load or apply any pesticide as part of their occupation, including
licensing handlers as currently defined in the WPS.

In November, the EPA will publish a Federal Register Notice of Intent to proceed
with proposed changes to the WPS and Applicator Training regulation. A rule
proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register in February 2007.

University of Washington students in Matt Keifer and Richard Fenske’s
Pesticides and Public Health graduate class focused on WPS. They presented
their recommendations for improvements to the WPS at the October 2005 PIRT
meeting:

• Public Health Strategies for Minimi zing Pesticide Exposure: Collateral
Populations. Yolanda Sanchez address ed the four issues of pesticide
drift, pesticide use reporting, decon tamination, and exposure of children
to pesticides.

• Evaluating and Revising the Training Portions of the WPS: Elizabeth
Hom and Mac Rainey evaluated the current standard for training and
recommended changes that address barriers to workers hearing the
pesticide safety message, ensuring that training is documented,
establishing incentives for growers to provide training, and enforcing
compliance.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 17

## At the March 2005 PIRT meeting, Cliff Weed of WSDA described WSDA
enforcement of the WPS through inspecti ons at agricultural sites. In Tier-I
inspections, the business place is inspec ted and the employer is interviewed for
compliance with the WPS. In Tier-II inspections, workers are also interviewed.
Historically, inspections have revealed t hat employers are doing well at providing
the following:

• Information on re-entry after pesticide applications

• Appropriate personal protective equipment

• Emergency assistance

The following violations are most commonly identified during inspection:

• Failure to post information on pesticide applications at a Central

Notification Board

• Failure to conduct Pesticide Safety Training, particularly for workers

• Insufficient Decontamination Supp lies particularly for handlers at

mix/load sites

In most cases violations are corrected without penalty.

Also, at the March 2005, PIRT meeting, Flor Servin of WSDA, discussed
programs to train employers and farmworkers in pesticide safety. These include:
Hands-on Training for pesticide handlers, Train-the-Trainer Program, Pre-license
Training, and recertification courses. Th e programs cover appropriate personal
protective equipment, mixing and loading, decontamination of personal protective
and application equipment, and cholinesterase information. From 2002 through
2004, 336 pesticide handlers received training at 14 workshops. During 2003 and
2004, 952 individuals were trained at 35 pre-license classes. Representatives
from industry, Jaime Reyes and Jaime Ramon, described what they learned in
the Train-the-Trainer Program and how they apply the information to their work in
WPS training.

Recommendation 5 PIRT will collect and review incident data related to the
tree fruit industry to identify trends and recommend
prevention strategies. Findi ngs will be summarized in
the 2006 PIRT Annual Report.

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts

DOH will compile, review and summarize in cident data related to the tree fruit
industry. The summary will be included with the 2006 PIRT Report

.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 18

## Recommendation 6 PIRT will continue to compile data related to drift and
report on member agencies’ drift reduction efforts.
PIRT will explore the feasibility of organizing a
Washington Symposium on Drift.

Lead: Ann Wick

WSDA and DOH are working with Carol Ramsey, the Pesticide Education
Coordinator for Washington State University, to develop a drift prevention
symposium and field day. The purpose of these events is to encourage growers,
primarily in the tree fruit industry, to learn about and adopt drift reduction
technology. Ms. Ramsey is planning a hands-on demonstration day for the winter
or early spring of 2006 and a symposium later to build on experiences from the
field day. Ms. Ramsey is coordinating a planning committee with researchers,
regulators, public health, and the tree fr uit industry to develop the field day and
symposium agenda.

Recommendation 7 The Panel will review and report on member agencies
independent strategies to reduce pesticide incidents

based on the combined PIRT data.

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts

Each PIRT agency conducted pesticide incident prevention activities. Details of
these activities are listed in each agency ’s Prevention Activities section in the
following Agency Summary Reports.

Recommendation 8 PIRT will review the activities of the Medical Monitoring
program for agricultural workers who handle
cholinesterase inhibiting insecticides.

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts

The activities of the Cholinesterase Monitoring Program for 2005 are described in
detail in the L&I Section of this report.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 19

## Recommendation 9 PIRT will continue to monitor for any increase in
pesticide incidents related to control of mosquitoes.

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts

West Nile virus was detected in Washington in 2005. One horse, 1 bird and 2
mosquito pools, all from Yakima County, tested positive for West Nile virus in
September. DOH tracks illnesses associated with control of community disease
vectors and incidents involving repellents. This allows DOH to identify pesticide
illness cases specifically associated with West Nile virus control efforts. Table 8
summarizes DOH cases associated with mosquito control, 2002 through 2004.

Table 8. DOH Cases* Associated with Mosquito Control, 2002 - 2004

2002 2003 2004

Adult mosquito control 3 4 2

Larval mosquito control 0 0 0

Mosquito repellent 1 6 4

* Limited to cases of illnesses classified by DO H as definitely, probably or possibly due to pesticide

exposure. See Appendix B for more info rmation on the DOH classifications.



## Recommendation 10 PIRT member agencies will report on possible
instances of unclear labeling of pesticide product
labels. WSDA will clarify or forward unclear federal
labels to EPA for response.

Lead: Ann Wick

Labels for the pesticide products, Lorsban and Guthion, were distributed to PIRT

members. Because of time constraints, there was no discussion but members
were asked to look at the directions regarding drift prevention and to be aware of
mandatory and voluntary directions to applicators. This discussion will be
continued as PIRT develops an agenda for the proposed drift conference.



# Other Panel Activities for 2005

RCW 70.104.080-100 Pesticide Panel

The Panel is reviewing the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) governing PIRT
activities (RCW 70.104.080-100 Pesticide Panel). A draft proposal for revisions

to the RCW was distributed. Discussion will continue in 2006.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 20

## Letter of Support for Modification of General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228

The Panel wrote a letter to WSDA in sup port of the proposed modification to the
General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228. The proposed changes require
notification of the application of highly toxi c or corrosive pesticides via aerial, air
blast, fumigation (outside) or overhea d chemigation applications when the
application site and the property boundaries touch and the application is within
one-half mile of schools, hospitals, nursing homes, or adult or child day care

centers.

The Panel noted that drift is a potentially serious route of exposure to pesticides.
Pre-notification of schools, daycares, an d hospitals will increase their awareness
of highly toxic pesticides used nearby, fa cilitate feedback to the growers about
the timing of planned applications, and will expedite protective actions if drift

occurs. The Panel also noted that ot hers could benefit from notifications
including: adjacent homes, assisted living fa cilities, senior centers, preschools,
private schools, community pools, parks, di alysis centers, and medical clinics. A
copy of the letter is located in Appendix F.

Sales Data on Pesticide Use

In August, 2005, Philip Dickey, PhD, fr om the Washington Toxics Coalition,
presented Insecticide Concentrations in Thornton Creek and Comparison to

Retail Sales based on the paper co-authored with Dean Wilson, Comparison
Between Consumer Sales of Diazinon and Carbaryl and Water Quality in an

Urban Stream. The report included data on retail sales of products containing
diazinon and carbaryl at Lowe’s and Home Depot Stores in King County from

1997-2002. Sales decreas ed after the EPA announced phase out of diazinon in

December 2000. He indicated that diazinon concentrations decreased and
carbaryl concentrations increased in Thornton Creek between January 1996 and
January 2003. Follow-up discussion incl uded consumer education on the use of
pesticides within the watershed and us ing surveys to determine whether
residents were dumping pesticide products in drains.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 21

# Agriculture

Washington State Department of Agricultur e’s summary of pesticide-related complaint investigations during 2004.



# Background

The Pesticide Management Division of the Washington State Department of
Agriculture (WSDA) protects human health and the environment by ensuring the
safe and legal distribution, use, and disp osal of pesticides in Washington State.

WSDA investigates all complaints re ceived by the agency regarding possible
pesticide misuse, storage, sales, and distribution. It also investigates complaints
about applicator licensing and building stru cture inspections for wood destroying
organisms. The agency inspects marketplaces, importers, manufacturers, and
pesticide application sites for complianc e with state and federal laws and
regulations.



# Complaints

During 2004, WSDA investigated 200 complain ts (Table 9). After investigation, it
was determined that 110 ( 55%) involved pesticide applications and 90 (45%)
were unrelated to actual applications. Examples of complaints unrelated to
applications are structural inspections or licensing complaints. There were 122
violations associated with the 200 complaints. See Appendix C for a listing of all
WSDA pesticide-related complaint investigations for 2004.

Table 9. WSDA Complaints and Violations, 2000 - 2004

Year Total Complaints Violations

2000 199 121 (61%)

2001 225 152 (68%)

2002 255 169 (66%)

2003 222 151 (68%)

2004 200 122 (61%)



## Location of Complaints

There are significant differences in popu lation, the types of pest problems, and
the nature of complaints between the east ern and western portio ns of the state.
Western Washington complaints general ly concern wood destroying organism
inspections, homeowner complaints about drift, intentional misuse, and
complaints about unlicensed applicators. In 2004, the number of complaints
investigated for Structural Pest Insp ections decreased from previous years.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 23

## Figure 2. WSDA Complaints by County, 2004

San Juan Island

Clallam

Jefferson

Grays

Harbor Kitsap

Lewis

Skamania Pacific Mason Ferry

Stevens

Lincoln

Kittitas

Klickitat Columbia Garfield

Asotin Okanogan

Snohomish

Douglas Spokane King

Yakima Skagit Whatcom

Pierce

Franklin

Benton Whitman

Walla Walla

Clark Cowlitz Thurston

Wahkiakum

6 -10 0-5 11-20 Pend

Oreille

Grant

Adams Chelan

21+

n = 200 

## In 2004, 117 (58.5%) of
the complaint
investigations occurred in
eastern Washington and
82 (41%) in western
Washington. There was

one out-of-state
complaint. Figure 2 shows
the range of complaints
by county for 2004. Table

10 lists the counties with
the most complaint
investigations from 2000
through 2004.

Table 10. WSDA Counties with the Most Complaints, 2000 - 2004

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Yakima 26 King 21 Spokane 28 King 23 King 28

Grant 21 Grant 20 King 27 Pierce 22 Grant 20

Pierce 16 Spokane 20 Yakima 26 Grant 19 Spokane 17

Benton 14 Yakima 18 Thurston 17 Spokane 19 Benton 15

Chelan 13 Benton 13 Pierce 17 Yakima 13 Yakima 15

Spokane 11 Pierce 12 Chelan 16 Benton 12 Walla Walla 11

Clark 10 Lewis 11 Grant 16 Chelan 12 Pierce 11

Douglas 9 Thurston 10 Multiple 9 Clark 11 Snohomish 10

King 8 Multiple 10 Chelan 8



## Response Time

In 2004, WSDA responded to 79% (157/200) of complaints within one day of the
incident. As required, WSDA responded to all Human Exposure complaints (22)
within one day.

Nature of Complaints

Complaints are categorized according to the nature of the initial complaint.
Investigation may find the complaint not va lid, substantiate the initial complaint,
or identify additional violations. For example, an initial complaint may concern a
possible drift, but investigation determi nes that drift did not occur but the
applicator applied at the wrong rate or did not keep proper records. Although the
applicator would not be cited for drift, he or she could be cit ed for being “faulty,

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 24

## careless, and negligent” or for record keeping violations. When complaints are
associated with numerous possible violat ions, the case is categorized by the
most serious complaint. For example, a complaint involving human exposure
caused by drift from application by an un licensed applicator would be categorized
as human exposure even if the only final outcome of the case was a Notice of
Correction for record keeping. However, in general, the initial complaint is a fairly

reliable indicator of the final outcome of t he case and reflects the concerns of the
complainant.

In 2004, WSDA received 64 general complaints about possible pesticide drift to
property, water, or crops and 22 complain ts specifically about human exposure to
pesticides, some of which were due to drift (Figure 3). There were 38 complaints
about drift to property or vehicles and 23 crop-related drift complaints. Pesticides
moving off-target appears to be one of the major reasons to register a complaint
with WSDA. Complaints about misuse of pesticides increased in 2004. Generally,
these complaints concerned damage to ornamentals from commercial
applications or from a neighbor’s application. Most of these complaints were not
substantiated as the damage was due to drought, insects, or frost. WSDA
receives numerous complaints about non-licensed individuals and faulty
structural inspections. The WSDA receiv ed 22 complaints about improper or no
licensing, 11 complaints about direct misapplications, and 14 complaints specific
to Wood Destroying Organism (WDO) and Structural Pest Inspections (SPI) (in
addition to WDO/SPI complaints about im proper licenses or records). Two bee
kills were reported for 2004.

Figure 3. WSDA Nature of Initial Complaints, 2004

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

D r ift Human Exposure Lice n se Mi s u se

S

P I /WDO /P

CO

D i r e ct Records Posting Animal De

a ths

B e e K ill

Mi

s ce

ll an

o u s

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 25

## Drift and Human Exposures

Of the 22 complaints about possible human exposure to pesticides, 13 were due
to drift, 3 complaints involved a direct contact with the pesticide (generally
through soil) and 6 complaints were about odor or vapor. Analyses were done to
determine if the complaints about human exposure or drift were valid, regardless
of whether they were the cause of a regulatory action. These analyses

determined that:

• 42 of the 64 general drift complaints had residue detected off target

• 3 of the 22 human exposure complaints were direct exposure

• 11 of the 22 human exposure complaints were not related to any
pesticide exposure

• 7 of the 22 human exposure complaints were due to drift and had
residue detected off target

• 1 human exposure complaint was referred

In 2004, WSDA conducted an initial investigation of one complaint from a farm
worker alleging pesticide exposure from re sidue. WSDA referred this case to L&I.
L&I is the lead agency to investigate em ployee agricultural pesticide exposures
alleged to be from their employment.

The alleged human exposures investigated by WSDA were primarily reported
from neighbors or individuals who were in agricultural areas but not doing
agricultural labor. These persons reported either drift or direct contact with
pesticides.

Application Methods

In 2004, WSDA received 15 complaints about aerial applications, 1 chemigation
complaint, 1 complaint about misuse of a fogger, 2 fumigation complaints, 94
complaints about ground applications, 70 complaints about items other than an
application, and 17 complaints where the application method was undetermined

or unknown.



# Violations

Complaint investigations may result in th e determination that a violation of state
or federal laws or rules has occurred. During 2004, about 60% of WSDA
complaint investigations resulted in some type of violation. Most violations are
not severe in nature (see Table 14 on pa ge 32) and most violators are issued a
warning or correction notice rather than issued fines or license suspensions.

Type of Activity in Complaints with Violations

Complaints are classified by WSDA according to the following type of activities:

• Agricultural: Incidents occurring in an agricultural environment such as
farming, forestry, greenhouses, or Christmas tree farming

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 26

## • Commercial/industrial: Incidents by licensed operators making
applications to offices, restaurants, homes, and landscapes

• Pest Control Operator (PCO): In cidents involving a subset of
commercial/ industrial operators licens ed to make applications to control
structural pests

• Wood Destroying Organism (WDO): Incidents involving inspections on
structures for fungi, insects, and conditions that lead to pests. No
pesticide applications are made

• Structural Pest Inspections (SPI): A change in law established a
separate definition for a license for this work. Replaces the previous
WDO incident count. No pesticide applications are made

• Residential: Includes any application of a pesticide in a residential
environment by the homeowner, resident, or neighbor

• Right-of-ways: Applications made on public land such as roadways,
electric lines, and irrigation canal banks

• Other: The WSDA code for undefined use and includes licensing,
storage, registration, records, and similar activities

Table 11 shows the complaints with violations by type of activity from 2000
through 2004



## .

Table 11. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2000 - 2004

Activity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Agricultural 48 63 69 39 42

Commercial/Industrial 33 27 31 38 17

Pest Control Operator/ Wood Destroying Organism 14 28 16 33 22

Residential (non commercial) 11 11 13 7 5

Right-of-Way 8 8 3 5 5

Other (licenses, records, etc.) 7 15 37 29 31

Total Violations 121 152 169 151 122

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 27

## Figure 4 identifies the violations by type of activity for 2004.

Figure 4. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Agricultural Commercial/Industrial PCO/WDO/SPI Residential (Non-Commercial) Right-of-Way Other (Licenses, records, etc.)



## Violations alone do not give an accurate picture of pesticide exposures. For
example, there can be instances wher e drift has occurred and no action can be
taken, as the violator could not be pr oven. Sometimes the applicator has moved
away, often out of state, and cannot be lo cated. However, in general, violations
give a good representative picture of the validity and severity of pesticides

incidents.

Type of License in Complaints with Violations

In 2004, WSDA licensed approximately 5,100 commercial applicators and
operators and over 12,000 private applicators. Alt hough WSDA licenses fewer
commercial than private a pplicators, commercial app licators make many more
applications per licensee and more applications on land not owned by the
applicator. This increases the probability of complaints for commercial
applicators. See Appendix D for information about WSDA license types.

In 2004, commercial applicators were involved in 54 complaints with 36
violations. Private applicators were involved in 31 complaints with 22 violations.
Unlicensed applicators were involved in 49 complaints with 36 violations.
Unlicensed applicators were primarily unlicensed people conducting structural
pest inspections that should have been licensed (Figure 5).

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 28

## Figure 5. WSDA Type of Licensee Involved in Cases With and Without Violations, 2004

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Commercial Applicator Private Applicator Unlicensed Applicator Not Applicable Commercial Consultant Unknown Public Operator Dealer Structural Pest Inspection

Violations No Violations



# Agricultural Complaints

In agriculture, most of the complaints with violations involve pesticides applied to
orchards. This is not unexpected, as orchards tend to be located in more
populous areas, and may be on smaller acreages intermixed with other crops,
housing, and heavily traveled roads. The most frequent complaints involved
applications to apples, followed by applications to cherries and pears. The most
frequent agricultural complaints in 2004 for a single crop were from applications
to potatoes. Most of the complaints were about possible human exposure,
followed closely by drift or direct exposure to vehicles (Table 12).

Table 12 summarizes the most frequent target and complaint sites for
investigations in which citations were i ssued for agricultural violations for 2004.

Table 12. WSDA Agricultural Violations, 2004

Most Frequent Target Site* Most Frequent Complaint Site**

Potatoes 6 Person 8

Wheat 5 Ca r 5

A pp les 5 Trees 4

Cherries 4 Potatoes 3

Pears 4 Bees 3

Alfalfa 2

Pro p ert y 2
Pears (including organic) 2

* Target site is the intended target for the pesticide. ** Complaint site is where the pesticide landed or the type of complaint filed.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 29

# Non-Agricultural Complaints

In 2004, the most frequent non-agricultural complaint concerned structural pest
inspections. Generally, these complaints occur because inspectors fail to notice
or report signs of infestation or wood rot rather than diagnosing problems that do
not exist. The most frequent type of violat ion cited by WSDA was failure to keep
accurate or adequate records (did not record conditions conducive to rot or the
presence of insects) and failure to obtain the proper license type for the
application being done.

The most common complaint about non-agricultural applications was from drift or
direct applications to control weeds from an unlicensed applicator, usually a
neighbor. The second most common complaint concerned misuse of products to
control insects. Complaints about drift from commercial lawn care applications
were significantly reduced from previous years.

Table 13 summarizes the most frequent target and complaint sites for
investigations in which citations were i ssued for non-agricultural violations for

2004.

Table 13. WSDA Non-Agricu ltural Violations, 2004

Most Frequent Target Site* Most Frequent Complaint Site**

Weeds 8 Structural Pest Inspection 22

Insects 6 License 17

Property 3 Records 4

Right of Way 3 Backflow Device 3

Lawns 3

* Target site is the intended target for the pesticide. ** Complaint site is where the pesticide landed or the type of complaint filed.



## The distribution of complaints has been co nsistent over the years and points to
the need for greater education of applicator s, particularly in drift reduction
techniques. Some violations may reflect the transient nature of employment or
lack of applicator training and some, particu larly for structural pest inspections,
may reflect willful fraud. The number of preventable violations points to the
continuing need for a strong agency enforce ment program. However, given that
the estimated number of applications is in the hundreds of thousands, there are
few serious offenses directed to the department.

Applicators must comply with all prec autions and directions on the pesticide
label. The following case illustrates probl ems that can occur when an applicator

becomes careless.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 30A dog went into seizures and required veterinary care when it ingested a granular

insecticide. A commercial applicator had us ed Talstar, a granular product containing

bifenthrin to control beetles around a home. The dog’s owner called WSDA and the

investigator found granules of Talstar clumped around the site in a garden with

strawberries, cucumbers and peppers, and in the dog’s water dish, a wagon, and pottery

dish. Water and dog vomit samples were positiv e for bifenthrin. The label requires: 1)

application only with equipment that disperses the pellets in a uniform manner, 2) does

not allow for the product to be used in a food garden, and 3) requires that pets and

people be kept from the area after application. The applicator had applied the product

carelessly using an empty pop can, had applied in the garden, and did not warn the

dog’s owner about contact. He was issued a No tice of Intent corrective action and fined

for applying in a faulty, careless, and negligent manner.



# Children

In 2004, children were involved directly or indirectly in 5 cases. DOH also
investigated 4 of the cases. Two cases involved alleged illnesses that were
probably from odor. No residues were identified on or near the children. One
case involved a possible residue transferr ed by a parent from a wet railing to the
child. No symptoms were observed in the child. One case concerned a possible
Sudden Infant Death that occurred in 2003. The child died the day after the
apartment was treated with an insect fogger. DOH asked WSDA to determine if
the label had been followed and all precautions taken for ventilation after the use
of the fogger. As the case occurred in 2003, WSDA could only review the

records. No violations were noted and th e official cause of death was listed as

Sudden Infant Death. This case was described in detail in the DOH and WPC

Sections of the 2004 Annual PIRT Report . The fifth case, where DOH was not
notified, was a complaint that notificatio n had not been provided at a child care
facility when a pesticide was used. The case concerned emergency use of a
wasp spray. WSDA discussed the need for posting with the applicator.



# Severity of Reported Complaints

The WSDA rates the severity of cases fr om 0 to 6 after completing the complaint
investigation. See Table 14 for a detailed description of each rating. As in
previous years, the majority of complaints were assigned a severity rating of 2 or

less.

Five of the 8 cases with a severity rati ng of 4 were from herbicide drift to a
susceptible or organic crop with large fi nancial losses. Two of the applications
were made to potatoes, 1 to peas, 1 to hay and 1 to control weeds in a right-ofway. One case was drift from an insecticide application to potatoes. The other 2
cases were injury from direct applications , 1 from an application to control weeds

in a wetland, and the other for insect co ntrol that resulted in an animal illness.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 31

## Table 14. Severity Rating of WSDA Complaint Cases, 2000 - 2004

Rating 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Criteria

0 20

10% 23

10% 30

12% 22

10% 26

14.5% Problem not due to pesticides and/or no cause determined; PCO/WDO inspection

with no violations.

1 40

20% 71

31.5% 76

30% 51

23% 65

32.5% Pesticides involved, no residue, no symptoms occurred; possible pesticide problem, not substantiated; issues involving records, registration, posting, notification (multiple chemical sensitivity) or licensing; DOH classified "unlikely" or

"insufficient information".

2 89

45% 72

32% 114

45% 112

50% 83

41.5% Residue found, no health symptoms (human, animal); health symptoms not verified; multiple minor violations; off label use; worker protec tion violations; PPE violations with no health symptoms; plants with temporary or superficial damage only; PCO/WDO faulty inspections; DOH classified "possible".

3 31

16% 35

15.5% 31

12% 22

10% 18

9% Minor short-term health symptoms (rash, eye irritation, shortness of breath, dizzy, nausea, vomiting); bee kills less than 25 hives; minor fish kills; economic plant damage under $1000; evidence of
deliberate economic fraud; DOH classified "probable".

4 17

9% 20

9% 3

1% 13

6% 8

4% Short-term veterinary or hospital care; bee kills over 25 hives; significant fish kills; significant economic plant damage (over $1000); environmental damage; illness involving children; DOH classified "probable" .

5 2

1% 4

2% 1

0.4% 2

1% 0 Veterinary or hospital care overnight or longer; physician diagnosed children's illness as caused by pesticides; animal death due to pesticides; significant environmental damage; DOH classified

"definite".

6 0 0 0 0 0 Human death due to pesticides.

Total 199 225 255 222 200

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 32

## The following case example illustrates an agricultural violation with a severity rating of 4.

An aerial application of Monitor (methamidophos) and Comite (propagate) to potatoes

drifted on alfalfa being grown for seed. Leaf cutter bees had been placed in the alfalfa

field to provide for pollination. A temperat ure inversion was present at the time of

application. Both the potato field and the alfalfa field slope down towards a common

drainage ditch. There was a very slight breeze from the potato field towards the alfalfa

field. Both the Monitor and the Comite l abels have warnings agains t application when the

wind favors off-target movement. In addition, the Monitor label states “Do not apply this

product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment

area.” Monitor is highly toxic to bees. The alfalfa grower incurred loss of nearly $500,000

in lost seed production and over $10,000 for t he loss of bees. The applicator was issued

a Notice of Intent and fined.



# Type of Pesticide Involved

In 2004, herbicides were involved in 67 complaints and insecticides in 39
complaints. There were relatively fewer complaints about other pesticides such
as fumigants (7), fungicides (3) and rodenticides (1). This may be because

detrimental effects from herbicide and insecticide misuse are more obvious and
because they are generally applied at a higher frequency, with more power
equipment, and over larger areas.

Overall, complaints about applications in 2004 show a greater diversity of
pesticides than in previous years. There were 2 complaints about azinphosmethyl drift and 2 complaints about endosulfan drift. The complaints on these
products continue to decrease. Herbicide dr ift continues to constitute the greatest
number of complaints. Fumigant complaints seem to be increasing in number
although the complaints are usually only about odor rather than illness.

In 2004, 2 herbicides, glyphosate (19 co mplaints) and 2,4-D (14 complaints),
were the most frequently reported active ingredients (Table 15). This is
consistent with previous years’ numb ers and probably reflects the frequency of
use, use by unlicensed (untrained) applic ators and the high visibility of misuse.
Many complaints involved tank mixes of several products.

Complaints reported to WSDA should be regarded as indicators of potential
problem areas and are not a definitive summary of all misapplications. For
example, drift involving products such as sulfur and kaolin (clay) may occur more
often than is reported. Such products ar e readily identifiable and people tend to

be less worried about unknown effects from these products. These products also
have minimal health effects and minimal detrimental effects on non-target plants
and property.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 33

## Table 15. Active Ingredients Most Co mmonly Involved in Complaints, 2004

Active Ingredient

Glyphosate 19

2,4-D 14

Chlorpyrifos 5

Dicamba 5

Metam-Sodium 4

Kaolin 3

MCPA 3

Oil 3

Permethrin 3

Sulfosulfuron 3



# Enforcement Actions

Complaint investigations may result in th e determination that a violation of state

or federal laws or rules has occurr ed. Generally, first offenders or minor
infractions are given a Notice of Correction and a period of time to come into
compliance. For more serious infractions, WSDA follows the penalty matrix for
any legal actions as specified in WAC 16-228-1130.

Sometimes more than one corrective action is taken on a case. In this report,
only one corrective action per category is identified. For example, if more than

one Notice of Correction was issued, the action would be listed as one Notice of
Correction. However, if more than one type of corrective action was taken, such
as a Notice of Correction and a Notice of Intent, as could happen if several
applicators were involved in the same in vestigation, both types are listed.

Table 16. WSDA Agency Actions, 2000 - 2004

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

No action indicated 78 74 84 71 76

Verbal warning 1 3 6 3 1

Advisory letter/Warning letter 4 4 8 8 4

Notice of correction 96 111 127 116 98

Notice of intent/Administrative action 17 37 31 26 20

Referred 2 2 2 0 2

Stop sale 1

Total actions 199 231 258 224 201

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 34

## In 2004, the following corrective actions were taken: No Action Indicated (76),
Verbal Warning (1), Advisory or warning letter (4), Notice of Correction (98),
Notice of Intent (Fines, License Suspension) (20), and Referred (2) (Table 16).
One case had more than one type of action (several applicators involved). See
Appendix D for Enforcement Action definitions.



# Other Agencies Involved

The WSDA works in cooperation with other state and local agencies in their
particular area of responsibility and expertise. Agencies cooperate in the
collection of evidence and testimony. Co operating agencies may independently
report their involvement in these cases or they may do no further independent
investigation.

In 2004, WSDA consulted with other state, federal and local agencies, including
the police, in 45 investigations. The Departments of Health and Ecology and EPA
were the most frequently consulted. On e case was referred to the Yakama

Nation and one case to L&I.



# WSDA Prevention Acti vities 2004 and 2005

A one-time appropriation of $200,000 from the L&I accident fund was approved
in the 2004-2005 legislative session to enha nce WSDA’s farm worker education
program. An advisory committee reco mmended that WSDA continue current
efforts and expand efforts especially in hands-on education in the field. WSDA

will use the funds to add staff, assist Wa shington State University with training
and purchase equipment.

WSDA filed a CR 102 in 2005 for a notification process when Danger/Poison
pesticides are applied by air, airblast equipment, over head chemigation or
fumigation outside structures, near scho ols hospitals, nursing homes, and adult
and child day care centers. Public hearings were held in November 2005 in
Wenatchee, Yakima, and Olympia.

In addition to investigations of possible pesticide misuse, WSDA inspects
marketplaces, importers, manufacturers, and other businesses using pesticides
for compliance with state and federal la ws and regulations; licenses pesticide
applicators and conducts training on the WPS; administers a waste pesticide
collection program; and addresses groundw ater issues that involve pesticides.

Details of these activities for 2004 are listed below:

Compliance

• Conducted 18 marketplace inspections to check for cancelled,
suspended, and unregistered products; child-resistant packaging; etc.

• Conducted 84 agricultural use inspections to evaluate compliance with
pesticide product labels, the WPS, equipment, licensing, etc.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 35

## • Conducted 16 dealer inspections to check for misbranded, cancelled,
and restricted use sales of pesticide products, and to check for dealer
licensing.

• Conducted 6 inspections at establishments that produce pesticides to
check for labeling, disposal, record reporting and containment.

• Conducted numerous presentations at meetings held by growers,
schools, labor groups and other organizations to discuss pesticide
compliance and preventing incidents.

Registration Services

• Conducted environmental toxicology reviews of Special Local Need
registrations, Section 18 emergency exemptions and experimental use
permits for numerous active ingredients (e.g., diazinon, diflubenzuron,
disulfoton, endosulfan, glyphosate, lambda-cyhalothrin, PCNB, phorate,
propargite, propiconazole, tria zamate, zeta-cypermethrin).

• Provided information to the Yakama Nation on special local need
registrations issued by WSDA and Section 18 emergency exemptions
requested by WSDA.

• Provided comments to the EPA regardi ng proposed revisions to the
emergency exemption process.

• Participated in educational works hops regarding West Nile virus and
compliance with state rules and regulations and proper application
techniques. Prepared a publication on biopesticides registered for
mosquito larvae control.

• Worked with the EPA and registrant s to develop label statements for
several active ingredients (e.g. novaluron, mesosulfuron, zinc phosphide)
that will reduce the potential fo r adverse impacts on non-target
organisms (e.g. bees, mammals, plants).

• Provided information to beekeepers on the legal use of pesticides to
control mites in honey bee colonies.

• Developed recommendations to add 5 spray adjuvants that are slightly
toxic or practically non-toxic to fres hwater fish and aquatic invertebrates
to Ecology’s NPDES permit for aquatic noxious weed control.

• Provided comments to Ecology regarding spray adjuvant use in
conjunction with Bacillus thuringiensis ku rstaki (Btk) in secticides for
control of gypsy moth.

• Conducted surface water pesticide monitoring activities in eastern and
western Washington watersheds. The data was made available to EPA
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries for their
endangered species assessments.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 36

## • Provided EPA with crop and pesticide use information for their
endangered species assessments.

Licensing and Farm worker Protection

• Developed and mailed the annual pesticide newsletter , Pesticide Notes

, to all licensed applicators. The news letter has information on preventing
pesticide violations, new pesticide regulations and current pesticide
problems. The July 2004 Pesticide Notes highlighted pesticide safety,
emphasizing avoiding exposure to farmworkers and children.

• Continued hands-on Train-the-Trainer Spanish language pesticide
worker safety programs.

• Continued outreach to Spanish speaking farmworkers on pesticide safety
through radio programs, newsletters, training classes and presentations.

• Developed Spanish language training manuals and applicator exams.

Waste Pesticide Disposal

• Collected and disposed of 153,723 pounds of waste pesticide in 2004.
Over the program’s history, this is an average of 323 pounds per
customer. Twenty-eight events were held.

• Identified contents of unknown cont ainers suspected to be pesticides
and disposed of them or recommended other disposal options.

• Worked on issues around pesticide container recycling.

Groundwater Protection

• Finished mapping project of groundwater depth (where known), soil
types, and land use.

• Developed model for pesticide aquifer vulnerability map for Washington

State. Started verification work.

• Participated in educational meetings on protecting groundwater from
pesticides.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 37

# Ecology

Washington State D epartment of Ecology’s summary of pesticide-related Spill Program complaints, Toxic Cleanup Program and Aquatic Pesticide Permits during 2004.



# Background

Multiple programs within the Department of Ecology are involved in pesticiderelated activities. Ecology works with National Marine Fisheries Service and other
federal and state agencies to reduce the impacts of pesticide applications to
salmonids under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The agency participates
in an interagency Urban Pesticide committee, the Washington State Healthy
Schools Initiative and other projects. Ecology is responsible for oversight of
contaminated areas requiring cleanup or monitoring, including areas
contaminated with pesticides. Ecology’s pollution prevention and sustainability
efforts emphasize prevention of the overuse and misuse of pesticides.

This report presents dat a for three programs: Spill Prevention, Preparedness,
and Response Program; Toxics Cleanup Program; and Water Quality Program.
These programs track data on pesticide spills, on the cleanup of pesticide
contamination, and on the use of pesticides to protect water quality. This report
also provides a brief description of the Surface Water Monitoring Program for
Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing Streams, April to December 2004.



# Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program:

Pesticide-Related Incidents

The Spill Program responds to pesticide-related complain ts and is responsible for
ensuring that damage from a spill is contained as much as possible and cleaned
up as quickly as possible. Ecology uses the data from pesticide-related spills and
complaints to identify where additional education is necessary to reduce the
impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment. Summaries of the
Spill Program pesticide-related complaints for 2004 are provided in Appendix C.

Table 17 lists the types of pesticide-r elated complaints received from 2000 to
2004. Complaints can involve more than one category of concern.

Table 17. Ecology Pesticide-Related Complaints, 2000 - 2004

Type of complaint* 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Pesticides threatening ground or surface water 20 11 23 13 10

Pesticide disposal or waste concern 14 14 12 12 6

Spills and fires 10 1 12 5 10

Unsafe pesticide storage or handling 13 6 11 10 3

* Complaints may involve more than one category.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 39

## There were 29 pesticide-related complaints involving threats to air, water, and/or
soil in 2004. Spill Program response to complaints may include follow-up by
phone, referral back to involved parties for voluntary cleanup, referral to another
agency, or issuance of a notice or requir ement for cleanup. Complaints that are
resolved during the initial contact and do not require technical assistance,
investigation, or referral are classified as “No follow-up”. A request for information
is an example of a “No follow-up” complaint. Investigations are initiated for
complaints requiring field work, research, coordination with other agencies, or

technical assistance.

Ecology responded within 24 hours in 27 (93%) of the 29 complaints in 2004.
Ecology investigated 19 of the 29 complaints.

Of the 29 pesticide-related complain ts received by Ecology during 2004:

• 8 occurred in the agricultural environment.

• 2 involved commercial or industrial activities.

• 8 were reported by private citizens.

• 2 stemmed from residential activities.

• 2 involved a combination of chemicals containing a pesticide.

• 3 resulted in potential exposure to humans.

• 6 required some form of cleanup or removal of materials.

• 4 were referred to the Toxics Cleanup Program.

After Ecology Spill staff respond and stabiliz e the initial emergency, the case is
closed if it is determined that there are no long-term impacts. If there are longterm impacts, the case is referred to another program within the agency. When
indicated, Ecology refers complaints to other state or local agencies. In 2004, the
Spill Program referred 6 complaints involv ing pesticides to Tribes, Department of
Transportation, city and county public works departments and WSDA. Ecology
immediately notified DOH of 3 incidents where humans were potentially exposed
to pesticides. The following is an example of a referred complaint:

In April 2004, the local fire chief collected a sample of pellets spilled on the ground near

Lake Roesiger in Snohomish County. The pellets covered an area about 40-feet long

and 8-feet wide. The fire chief gave the samp le to Ecology for technical assistance.

Ecology conducted hazardous categorization within 24 hours after the event. Pesticide

and cyanide tests were inconclusive. A second round of hazardous characterization tests

two days later were lightly positive for pestici des, but with a lower ph, most likely due to

oxidation over time. As run off into the lake from the suspected weed and feed product

was likely, Ecology recommended that lake water not be used for drinking until the lake

purged itself. The local health department notified the public and decided when it was

safe to use lake water again.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 40

# Toxics Cleanup Program: Cont aminated Sites Containing

Pesticides

Ecology is responsible for oversight of contaminated areas requiring cleanup or
monitoring. These sites may have been contaminated from leaking underground
petroleum tanks, historic or current pestic ide use, spills, or industrial processes.
Ecology placed 10 pesticide-contaminat ed sites on the cleanup list in 2004
(Appendix E). Two sites per county were added in Chelan and Pierce Counties
and one each in Grant, Okanogan, Snohom ish, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima

Counties.

Of the 10 pesticide-contaminated sites id entified in 2004, Ecology designated 9
sites as active and undergoing cleanup and 1 as a non-active (remediated) site
that was cleaned up or required no further action.

There were a cumulative total of 183 pe sticide-contaminated sites in 2004. Of
those, 94 sites remained active in the cleanup process at year’s end (Appendix
E). The status for all sites for 2004 is summarized in Table 18.

Table 18. Status of Pesticide-C ontaminated Sites Statewide, 2004

Pesticide-contaminated sites 2004

Sites undergoing cleanup at year’s end 94

Sites with no further action needed 58

Sites awaiting further investigation 31

Cumulative pesticide-contaminated sites for the year 183



# Water Quality Program: Aquatic Pesticide Permit

Ecology is delegated by the EPA to implement all federal water pollution control
laws and regulations through the state’s laws. These include the issuance of
permits for the use of aquatic pesticides to protect water quality. The permitting
process ensures that chemicals are sp aringly and properly applied, thereby
reducing the potential for exposure to natural resources and people. Aquatic
pesticide use during the 2004 application season is reported in the following
sections. This is the second year aquat ic pesticide permit data were tabulated
and analyzed for this purpose.

Nuisance Plant and Algae Control NPDES Permit

The Nuisance Plant and Algae Control General NPDES Permit is issued to
homeowners and lake advocacy groups for products used to control algae
blooms and invasive milfoil or native nuisance weeds in lakes and ponds.
Products permitted in the past included: Diquat, Endot hall, 2,4-D (BEE), 2,4-D
(DMA), Fluridone and glyphosate. Data on nuisance plant and algae control
NPDES permits issued in 2004 were not available in time for publication in this

report.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 41

## Oyster Grower’s NPDES Permit

The Oyster Grower’s NPDES Permit is an individual permit issued directly to the
Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Associati on by Ecology’s Southwest
Regional Office. It allows the use of carbaryl, an insecticide in the carbamate
family, to control burrowing shrimp in oyster beds. This permit was issued in
2002 and expires January 1, 2006. Data on the amounts used in 2004 were not
available in time for publication of this report.

Noxious Weed NPDES Permit

The Noxious Weed General NPDES Permit is issued to government agencies,
homeowners, lake advocacy groups, and marinas to treat lakes, rivers, and

estuarine environments for noxious, non-nat ive plant species. The treated areas
are located throughout Washington State. The permits are issued by WSDA in
partnership with the Ecology. The pr oduct totals are listed in Table 19.

Table 19. Noxious Weed NPDES Permit, 2004

Product Gallons Pounds

Glyphosate 8,452.4

Diquat 475.33

2,4-D 1,637.5 2,550

Fluridone 1.5 2,474

Endothall 43.5

Imazapyr 3,858.5

Triclopyr TEA 1,319.5

Total product applied 15,788 5,024



## Fish Management NPDES Permit

The Fish Management NPDES Permit is issued to the Department of Fish and
Wildlife for fish management in Washington lakes. Currently, Fish and Wildlife is
allowed to use only the product rotenone for fish management. The 14 lakes in
Table 20 were reported as treated during the spring and fall of 2004. All are in
eastern Washington.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 42

## Table 20. Fish Management NPDES Permit, 2004

Water Body Gallons Pounds

Pillar Lake 0 880

Snipe Lake 2 440

Cattail Lake 2 550

Gadwall Lake 0 385

Poacher Lake 3 0

Lemna Lake 0 110

Shoveler Lake 10 220

Sago Lake 2 220

Hourglass Lake 0 165

Widgeon Lake 17 715

Upper Hampton Lake 15 1,595

Lower Hampton Lake 20 880

Hen Lake 15 0

Dabbler Lake 5 0

Total product (Rotenone) applied 91 6,160



## Irrigation District NPDES Permit

The Irrigation District NPDES Permit is issued for products to control weeds and
algae in irrigation systems. The permit was issued to 16 of the 97 Washington
irrigation districts during the 2004 applic ation season. The 16 districts include
81% of the total irrigated land in Washington. The product totals are listed in

Table 21.

Table 21. Irrigation District NPDES Permit, 2004

Product Gallons Pounds

Xylene 16,025

Chelated copper* 855.7

Copper sulfate* 169,288

Acrolein 38,106.7

Total product applied 54,987.4 169,288

* When chelated copper and copper sulfate are converted into elemental copper, the amount of

copper applied equals 42,926 pounds.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 43

## Mosquito General NPDES Permi t

To prepare for the arrival of West Nile virus, the number of groups treating for
mosquitoes in Washington State rapidl y increased. Ecology allows mosquito
control districts and government agencies to apply for coverage under a general
permit through DOH. Some groups apply for coverage directly through Ecology’s
regional offices. All groups are required to submit the previous year’s pesticide
use data by February first of the following year. Table 22 summarizes pesticide
totals statewide from the 2004 application season.

Table 22. Mosquito General NPDES Permit, 2004

Product type Gallons Pounds

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) granular/bri quettes 11,011.81

Bacillus thuringiensis israel ensis (Bti) liquid 9,043.98

Bacillus spaericus (H-5a5b) 1,455.11

Methoprene briquettes 3,135.02

Methoprene liquid 488.36

Methoprene granular 143.95

Methoprene pellets 488.36

Monomolecular film 58.89

Paraffinic white mineral oil 127

Total product applied 9,718.23 16,032.64



# Surface Water Monitoring

The Departments of Ecology and Agricult ure are conducting a 3-year monitoring
study to characterize pesticide conc entrations in salmonid-bearing streams
during the typical pesticide-use season. A report is now available on the second
year (2004) results at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0503025.html

.
Two index watersheds, representing urban and agricultural land-use patterns,
were sampled from April through October 2004. Thornton Creek in the CedarSammamish watershed was selected as the urban drainage. Spring Creek,
Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Marion Drain in the Lower Yakima watershed
represented agricultural land-use patterns.

Concentrations of all pesticides were generally low and close to analytical
detection limits. In the agricultural basi n, 2,4-dichlorophenylacetic acid (2,4-D)
was the most commonly detected pesticide. Dichlobenil was most commonly
detected in the urban watershed. Five pes ticides, azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos,

diazinon, malathion, and 4,4'-DDE, we re above the numeric component of
various standards. A single detection of malathion (3.05 μg/L) approached the

acute LC 50 

## for rainbow trout (4 μg/L) in the Marion Drain.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 44

# Health

Washington State Department of Health’s su mmary of pesticide-related investigations during 2004

.



# Background

The Department of Health (DOH) Pestic ide Program investigates reports of
illness related to pesticide exposure. Data collected from the investigations are
used to identify public health problems and develop strategies for prevention.

This DOH report on 2004 pesticide-related data describes sources of case
reports, classification and severity of investigated cases, and the number and
location of DOH investigations. Data on occupational cases, agricultural cases,
and non-agricultural cases are presented. The section concludes with a
description of DOH pesticide illness prevention activities.



# Sources of Case Reports

DOH receives reports of suspected pesticide illness from numerou s sources, including WPC, L&I Claims Administration Program, WSDA, health care
providers, and others (Figure 6). More than one agency may report the same
illness event. See Combined Agency Data on page 8 for a description of
reporting requirements and patterns of referral between agencies.

Figure 6. Source of Case Reports, 2004

L&I (101)

WSDA (21)

Self (11)

Other (8) WPC and

Health care

providers

(153)

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 45

## DOH reviews reports of suspected pe sticide illness incidents and conducts
preliminary interviews to determine if the incidents should be investigated. An
incident is investigated if all of the following conditions apply:

• a pesticide exposure is reported

• symptoms are reported

• the pesticide exposure occurred during the last 3 months

• the pesticide exposure occurred in Washington State

• the pesticide exposure was not an intentional suicide gesture

An incident may involve multiple cases (persons) who experience pesticide
illness. The incidents investigated by DO H and found to be definitely, probably or
possibly related to the pesticide exposure are briefly described by case number
in Appendix C.

Increased Investigation of WPC cases - December 2004 through February

2005

Prior to the implementation of electron ic reporting, WPC reporting criteria
included symptomatic illness where the per son had seen a health care provider
or WPC had referred the person to a health care provider. DOH was interested in
capturing and evaluating calls in which a health care provider was not initially
involved, but the person later sought heal th care when the symptoms worsened.
Electronic reporting provided an opportu nity to expand reporting criteria to
include these cases. From December 2004 through February 2005, DOH
investigated symptomatic cases with no health care provider involvement. This

contributed to increased numbers of case s opened for investigation during these

months. Due to limited resources, DOH di scontinued investigating cases in which
health care providers were not involved beginning March 1, 2005. Details from

these additional cases will be described in the 2006 PIRT report along with other
analyses of 2005 data.



# Classification of Investigated Cases

DOH Pesticide Program investigators interview individuals, obtain pesticide
application records and medical records and, on occasion, conduct field visits.
Data from investigations are used to classify how likely it is that the symptoms
reported are related to a pesticide exposure. Case classification is determined
through documentation of the exposure , documentation of the health effect, and
evaluation of the causal relationship. DO H uses the NIOSH Case Classification
System to distinguish between Definite, Probable, Possible, Suspicious,
Insufficient Information, and Unlikely cases. Case classification criteria are listed
in Appendix B. Minimal criteria for assignment to Definite, Probable, and Possible
classifications are that reported symptoms are characteristic of known
toxicological effects of the pesticide agent, and the temporal relationship between
the exposure and symptoms is plausible. Further description of Definite,
Probable, and Possible (DPP) cases is provided in Table 23.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 46

## Table 23. Classification Criteria of Definite, Probable, and Possible

Pesticide Illness Cases

Evidence of Exposure Signs* and Symptoms**

Definite Laboratory, clinical, or environmental evidence corroborates exposure, and → Two or more post-exposure health effects (one a sign) or lab findings are reported by a licensed health care provider.

Probable Laboratory clinical, or environmental evidence corroborates exposure, and → Two or more post-exposure symptoms are reported.

Probable Evidence of exposure is based on report from case, witness, application, observation of residue or contamination,

and → Two or more post-exposure health effects (one a sign) or lab findings are reported by a licensed health care provider.

Possible Evidence of exposure is based on report from case, witness, application, observation of residue or contamination,

and → Two or more post-exposure symptoms are reported.

* Signs are objective evidence of illness and are observable on examination (e.g. low heart rate,

cough, rash). **Symptoms are subjective evidence of illne ss and are not observable on examination (e.g.

headache, nausea, dizziness).



## In 2004, 204 (76%) of the reported case s were determined to be definitely,
probably, or possibly related to pesticide exposur e. Figure 7 illustrates the

classification of cases for 2004.

Figure 7. Classification of Cases 2004

Definite (22%)

Suspicious (9%) Probable (21%)

Possible (23%)

Unlikely (6%) Insufficient

Information

(17%)



## The number of DPP cases for the years 2000 through 2004 is listed in Table 24.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 47

## Table 24. Definite, Probable, and Po ssible Case (DPP) Classification,

2000 - 2004

Classification 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Definite 32 21 50 69 63

Probable 85 51 60 53 55

Possible 86 48 64 62 86

Total DPP 203 120 174 184 204

Percent DPP 52% 48% 64% 67% 76%

All Cases Reported 388 250 270 275 269



## Although the percentage of cases classified as DPP appears to have increased
since year 2000, this is mostly an artifa ct of a change in how DOH tracks cases.
Prior to 2002, cases that were investigated but found to be asymptomatic or
unrelated were entered into the database and tracked. Beginning in 2002, these
cases are no longer entered or tracked.

In 2004, 38 investigated cases were classi fied as insufficient information. These
are cases in which only one symptom was reported, or DOH was unable to
document the pesticide involved, or t he patient couldn’t be reached for an

interview, or medical records were inconsis tent with the patient’s report of illness.
The percentage of investigations cla ssified as insufficient information has
remained steady for the last four years.

In the following example, the case wa s coded insufficient information because
the person’s medical records did not support exposure to the product.

A woman hit the barn wall as she was backing her car out and broke 2 brown unlabeled

bottles of strong smelling liquid. She got the liquid on her hands and sought medical

care at an emergency room for neurologi cal, dermal and respiratory symptoms. The

case was classified as insufficient information as it was not verified that the contents of

the bottles were pesticides.



# Severity of Medical Outcome

DOH uses the NIOSH Severi ty matrix for classifying signs and symptoms
associated with pesticide cases (Appendix B). The low/mild category includes
transient and spontaneously resolving sy mptoms such as nausea, vomiting,
shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, and skin or eye irritation.

Even relatively pronounced symptoms such as profuse sweating, ataxia,
peripheral neuropathy, eye pain, and difficu lty breathing are classified as low/mild
if a health care provider did not direct ly observe the symptoms. The moderate

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 48

## category includes signs and symptoms which are pronounced and/or prolonged
and in most cases must be observed by a health care provider. These include
second and third degree skin burns, ocular burns, systemic symptoms such as
altered heart rate and slurred speech, and respiratory depression.

In 2004, 173 (85%) of the 204 definite, pr obable, or possible DOH cases were
classified as mild. Twenty-nine (14%) cases were classified as moderate and 2
(1%) cases were classified as severe (Figure 8). Of the 204 DPP cases in 2004,
170 (83%) sought medical care for their symptoms.

Figure 8. Severity of Medical Outcome, DPP Cases, 2004

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Severe Moderate Mild

Saw HCP No HCP



## The following two examples describe case s that DOH classified as moderate and

severe.

Moderate case: A woman activated a flea fogger in the back of her two-door car and was

unable to exit the car quickly when the seat stuck. She inhaled the product and

developed acute respiratory symptoms. She was transported to the emergency room by

ambulance. Medical examination document ed vomiting, cough, wheezing and shortness

of breath.

Severe case: A crop truck driver was near an application (to wheat) containing

chlorpyrifos methyl. He went home and later that evening his wife drove him to the

emergency room where he was treated for neurological, gas trointestinal and

cardiovascular symptoms. He was given atropine, stabilized and admitted to the hospital

for two days. The attending physician also reported that he could smell pesticide on the

patient.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 49

# Number and Location of Investigated Cases

Number of Incidents

During 2004, the Pesticide Program investigated 245 reports of incidents
involving 269 cases of pesticide illness (Figure 9).

Figure 9. DOH Reported Incidents and Cases, 2000 - 2004

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Incidents Cases



## Seasonality of Incidents

The majority of investigated pesticide incidents occurred in the six months
between April and September. This included 79% of agriculture-related cases,
and 67% of non-agriculture cases. This is consistent with previous years.

Number of Persons Involved

In 2004, there were 186 incidents involving 204 definite, probable, or possible
cases. Of the 186 incidents, 173 (93%) involved 1 individual. Eleven incidents
involved 2 persons. One incident involv ed 7 persons and one incident involved 4
persons. The incident involving 7 persons is described below.

An unlicensed school employee applied an herbicide using a tractor mounted boom

sprayer to a school parking lot and sidewalk at 6:30 a.m. on a school day. Signs were

not posted and there was no notification of the application. Seven students and faculty

members became ill after smelling the vapors from the application. DOH determined

that 5 of the illnesses were definitely, probabl y or possibly related to the exposure. Two

students reported only one symptom and were cl assified as insufficient information.

Students and employees were evacuated from the school. WSDA investigated the

incident and found several violations incl uding failure to post and notify and applying a

pesticide with powered equipment wit hout a pesticide applicator license.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 50

## Location

In 2004, 29 of the 39 counties in Washington had cases definitely, probably, or
possibly related to pesticide exposure. Table 25 lists the 11 counties with the
most reported cases. Of the 205 DPP cases, 159 (78%) came from these
counties while 67% of the state popul ation resides in these 11 counties.

Table 25. Counties with the Most Reported Cases*, 2004

County Cases Incidents

King 32 28

Yakima 23 21

Grant 19 17

Benton 16 11

Pierce 16 16

Snohomish 15 12

Thurston 9 8

Skagit 9 9

Chelan 8 7

Franklin 6 6

Clallam 6 6

* Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.



## About half of the 204

DPP cases occurred in
western Washington
(109) and half in
eastern Washington
(95). This is consistent
with past years and
reflects population
density and location of
labor- intensive crops. Figure 10. Distribution of Cases by County, 2004

San Juan Island

Clallam

Jefferson

Grays

Harbor Kitsap

Lewis

Skamania Pacific Mason Ferry

Stevens

Lincoln

Kittitas

Klickitat Columbia Garfield

Asotin Okanogan

Snohomish

Douglas Spokane King

Yakima Skagit Whatcom

Pierce

Franklin

Benton Whitman

Walla Walla

Clark Cowlitz Thurston

Wahkiakum

1-4 0 5-10 Pend

Oreille

Grant

Adams Chelan

11+

n = 205 

## Figure 10 shows the

location of combined
definite, probable, or
possible cases for

2004.

Table 26 displays the distribution of ca ses defined as definite, probable, or
possible by agricultural and non-agricu ltural setting from 2000 through 2004.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 51

## Table 26. Annual Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Cases*, 2000 - 2004

Year Agricultural NonAgricultural Total Cases

2000 113 90 203

2001 58 62 120

2002 75 99 174

2003 73 111 184

2004 64 140 204

* Limited to cases with illness cl assified by DOH as definitely, pr obably, or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.



## The decrease in agricultural cases since 2000 is primarily due to fewer reports of
drift of agricultural pesticides to nearby homes. The number of occupational
agricultural cases has not declined during this period. For non-agricultural cases,

the increase since 2000 is due to increa sed reports of direct exposures to
pesticides by the applicator, usually at their home. Typical exposures are spills
and splashes while opening and pouring containers (contact) or wind blowing
spray back onto the applicator (spray). Two types of exposures seem particularly
problematic around the home: 1) eye exposures while spraying moss-out
products overhead onto roofs and 2) skin and inhalation exposures to bee and
wasp spray while spraying bee nests. Additional prevention education is needed
to encourage carefulness and protective clothing for these applications.

Age and Gender

In 2004, males (73) reported more occupational exposures than females (17).
Females (60) reported somewhat more non-occupation exposures than males
(54) (Table 27).

There were 22 cases involving children 18 years of age or younger that were
determined to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to pesticide exposure.

Sixteen of the 22 children were at home at the time of their exposures. One 3-
year-old child was in a church yard during an herbicide application. Three
teenagers got mosquito repellent their eyes . One student felt ill after an herbicide
application to the school parking lot. Three teenagers who were employed at the
time of their exposures were working at a golf course, home supply store, and

horse stable.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 52

## Table 27. Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases* by Age and Gender,

2004

Occupational Non-Occupational

Age Female Male Female Male Total

0-5 2 9 11

6-11 4 1 5

12-18 3 2 1 6

19-29 7 25 5 3 40

30-49 7 31 28 14 81

50+ 3 14 19 26 62

Total 17 73 60 54 204

* Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.



# Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness

In 2004, 129 (48%) of all reported case s investigated by DOH involved a
pesticide exposure on the job. Of these, 90 (70%) were classified as definite,
probable, or possible cases. Fifty-three of the 90 DPP cases were agricultural
workers and 37 were from other occupations.

Figure 11 shows DOH agricultural and non-agricultural occupational cases for
the years, 2000 through 2004.

Figure 11. Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Occupational Cases, 2000 - 2004

0 25 50 75 100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Agricultural Non-Agricultural

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 53

# Agricultural Pesticide Incidents

In 2004, DOH investigated 97 reports of suspected pesticide-related illness
involving agricultural operations. These exposures occurred when the pesticide
application was intended for agricultural commodities such as fruit and field
crops, nursery, livestock, and forest opera tions. Of the 97 cases, DOH classified
64 as definite (15), probable (21), and possible (28). In 2004, the types of
exposure were somewh at evenly distributed between drift, direct spray, contact
from a spill or leaking equipment, and surface residues (Table 28). All of the
agricultural, non-occupational exposures were to drifts.

Table 28. Agricultural Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases by

Source, 2004*

Year Occupational Non-Occupational Total

Drift 5 11 16

Spray 15 0 15

Contact 12 0 12

Surface residue 11 0 11

Indoor air 1 0 1

Unknown 6 0 6

Other 3 0 3

Total Cases 54 11 64

* Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.



## Pesticide drift was highlighted in the 2004 PIRT report as a continuing problem.
Reported cases involving agricultural drift declined in 2004 (Table 29). It is too
early to tell whether this trend is permanent. The annual number of drift cases
tends to be variable since a single incident can sicken multiple people. Drift to
workers generally involves farmworkers. Drift to non-workers generally involves
people in their homes, driving on roads, in parks, etc.

Table 29. Agricultural Drift to Workers and Others, 2000 - 2004*

Year Occupational Non-Occupational Total

2000 34 25 59

2001 14 13 27

2002 16 30 46

2003 12 12 24

2004 5 11 16

Total Cases 81 91 172

* Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 54

## Pesticide Involved in DPP Agricultural Workers

In 2004, there were 53 workers with illness/injury classified as definitely,
probably, or possibly related to pestici de exposure during agricultural activities.
Thirty-six of the 53 agricultural wo rkers were applying or mixing/loading,
maintaining pesticide equipment, or transporting pesticides at the time of their
exposure. Seventeen workers were expose d to pesticide drift or residues on
leaves while thinning, pruning, handling nurse ry plants, or doing other agricultural
work. One third of the 53 cases involved exposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting
insecticides although in almost half of t hese cases another pesticide was also in
the tank mix. Azinphos-methyl was in volved in 6 cases. Chlorpyrifos was
involved in 5 cases. Sulfur and calcium polysulfide (lime sulfur) were involved in
9 cases, again, often in tank mixes. Although use of pyrethroid insecticides is
increasing in agriculture, only one occupat ional exposure to cypermethrin was
detected in 2004. Table 30 shows the pesticide active ingredients for DPP cases
involving agricultural workers.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 55

## Table 30. Pesticide Involved in DPP Cases Involving Agricultural Workers by Ingredient, 2004

Pesticide Handlers Other Workers

Cholinesterase Inhibitors

Azinphos-methyl 2 1

Chlorpyrifos 2 1

Dimethoate 1

Disulfoton 1

Malathion 1

Combinations of pesticides with cholinesterase inhibitors 5 2

Other insecticides

Acetamiprid 1

Aluminum Phosphide 1

Cypermethrin 1

Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin 1

Moxidectin 1

Combinations of insecticides without cholinesterase inhibitors 4

Herbicides

2, 4-D 1

Glyphosate (mostly as Roundup) 6

Paraquat dichloride 3

Quizalofop-ethyl 1

Herbicide combinations 2

Fungicides

Calcium polysulfide 1 2

Captan 1

Chlorine 1

Pentachlornitrobenzene (PCNB) 2

Sulfur 3

Combinations of fungicides and growth regulators 3

Other

Prohexadione calcium 1

Kaolin 1

Totals 36 17

** Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably, or possibly due to

pesticide exposure.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 56

## Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Insecticides

With the statewide implementation of cholinesterase monitoring by WISHA in
January of 2004, there is continued intere st in data specific to cholinesteraseinhibiting insecticides. Figure 12 presents pesticide illness/injury data among
pesticide handlers for ten years (1995 through 2004) for these insecticides. Acute
and dermal symptoms continue to be reported by handlers of cholinesteraseinhibiting insecticides. In 2004, there were 11 DPP cases; an increase over the
previous two years. The numbers, howe ver, are too small and variable to detect

a reliable trend.

All but 1 of the 11 DPP cases sought health care in a hospital emergency room
or clinic. This person received health care from his regular occupational health
physician. Eight of the 11 cases occurred in tree fruit operations, mostly apples.
The other 3 occurred at an onion farm, an unspecified farm, and an ornamental
nursery. No cases involved aerial application. Most cases involved using (5) or
cleaning/fixing (2) orchard ground sprayers.

Description of Cholinesterase Cases

There were 4 cases of applicators drivin g orchard airblast sprayers who stated
that they wore the proper personal protective equipment, wore fit-tested
respirators and who still had symptoms and/or significant cholinesterase
inhibition. These workers told DOH in interviews that they sometimes still smell
the chemicals through the cartridges and feel mist on their face when they turn

the corner at the end of a row. One of these workers had 80% depression on his
plasma cholinesterase activity. A fifth or chard airblast sprayer lost his positive
pressure helmet when it caught on wires in the orchard and flipped off his head.

Two men were exposed while cleaning sprayer nozzles or fixing a sprayer.
Cleaning and repairing contaminated equipment is considered “handling” and full
pesticide handler’s personal protective equipment is required. In both cases the
mechanic only wore rubber gloves. One of these mechanics experienced
systemic symptoms and at least a 23% depression in plasma cholinesterase.
The other developed respiratory symptoms and contact dermatitis where
pesticides from the sprayer hit his forearms.

There were 2 handlers who had exposures while transporting pesticide to the
loading site or putting away a cleaned sprayer. Both were in the handling area
but did not have on personal protective equipment because they had not yet
started or had just finished their dire ct handling duties. Both were exposed to
spray from other handlers in the area. Personal protective equipment should be
worn at mixing and load sites and in areas where sprayers are being washed.

Six of the 11 handlers were enrolled in the cholinesterase monitoring program.
Two had significant depressions detected (80% and 57%). Two had only
baseline tests and were not tested again after their exposure. Two had no
depression in tests done 10 days post-i ncident relative to their baselines
although one had only dermal symptoms . Of the 5 handlers who were not

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 57

## enrolled, 2 worked at nurseries, one in an apple orchard, one at an onion farm,
and one at an unspecified farm. We do not know whether they had more than 30
hours of relevant handling in a 30-day period. Only one had cholinesterase
testing following their exposure. In this case a depression was indicated: testing
done one week after exposure was 23% lower in plasma cholinesterase activity
than a test taken four weeks post-exposure.

Figure 12. Cases by Type of Illness and Injury* for Pesticide Handlers**, 1995 - 2004

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Topical Illness Systemic Illness

* Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide exposure. ** Agricultural workers who handle cholines terase inhibitors via mixing, loading, applying, or repairing equipment.



## Table 31 shows the number of agricultu ral workers with reports of illness
associated with specific cholinesterase-inhibiting insecticides singularly or in tank
mixed combinations with other pesticide products for 2000 through 2004.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 58

## Table 31. Illness Type* for Pesticide Handlers** by Cholinesterase Inhibiting Pesticides, 2000 - 2004

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Totals

Pesticide S S T T S T T S T S S T

Azinphos methyl 1 1 1 2 4 1

Chlorpyrifos 2 2 4

Dimethoate 1 1 1 1

Disulfoton 1 1

Ethoprop 1 1

Combinations of

cholinesterase inhibitors with other products 7 2 4 4 1 3 3 1 3 2 18 12

Totals 10 3 5 4 1 3 5 1 8 3 29 14

* Type of illness/injury: S = Systemic: Any health effects not limited to the skin and/or eye. T = Topical: Health effects involving only the eyes and/or skin. ** Agricultural workers who handle cholinesterase inhibitors via mixing, loading, applying, or repairing equipment.



## Agricultural Crops Involved

Table 32 shows the crop associated with the 64 DPP cases resulting from
agricultural pesticide use in 2004. The crops involved were fruit (41) and field or
vegetable (11). Seven exposures occurred at nurseries, 3 at livestock or dairies
operations, and 2 involved forest lands or pasture. Four exposures were the
result of malfunctioning equipment.

In 2004, as in past years, the leading crops associated with reported cases are
tree fruit, one of the primary agricultural sectors of the state economy. These are
labor intensive crops requiring workers to be thinning, pruning, or harvesting
during the same times of year that pestic ides are applied. Dense planting of trees
impedes the applicator’s line of sight and requires excellent communication with
farm foreman and with neighboring farms to keep all workers clear of pesticide
applications. The airblast sprayer commonly has no enclosed cab, as this does
not fit well between the rows of trees. This leaves drivers of airblast sprayers
relatively exposed to the high pressure spray and reliant on personal protective
equipment to protect them from contact with spray. The high pressure spray is
also prone to drift. Thirty-three (80%) of the 41 cases in fruit production were
agricultural workers. Twenty-four of t hese 33 workers were applying, mixing, or
loading pesticides or were repairing pesticide equipment. Nine workers were
pruning trees or thinning/picking fruit at the time of their exposure. Eleven cases
were not working; they were exposed to pesticide drift in their homes.

Cases Resulting from Applications to Field Crops

In 2004, there were 10 incidents with 11 cases involving pesticide applications to
field crops (Table 32). The field crops included hops, peas, potatoes, onions and

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 59

## wheat. Eight of the 11 cases were agricultural workers and 6 of the 8 workers
were handling pesticides at the time of exposure. The 3 non-occupational cases
were exposed drift of pesticides applied to potatoes. The 3 were at home when
exposed.

Table 32. Agricultural Cases* by Target and Activity, 2004

Applying Mix/load/ Repair Routine

Work Outdoor Living Indoor Living Total

Fruit

Apples 11 5 7 2 25

Cherries 1 3 4

Grapes 2 1 3

Nectarines 1 1

Peaches 1 1

Pears 1 1 2 4

Raspberries 1 1 2

Unknown fruit 1 1

Field and Vegetable Crops

Hops 1 1 2

Peas 1 1

Potatoes 1 1 2 4

Onions 1 1 2

Wheat 2 2

Other Agricultural

Dairies 1 1 2

Forest lands 1 1

Livestock 1 1

Nurseries 2 1 4 7

Pasture 1 1

Totals 25 11 17 7 4 64

* Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.



# Non-Agricultural Pesticide Incidents

Of the 269 cases investigated in 2004, 172 were associated with non-agricultural
pesticide use. DOH determined 140 (70%) of these to be definitely, probably, or
possibly related to pesticide exposure (T able 33). Non-agricultural incidents
include pesticide applications or spills that occur at homes, commercial buildings,
industrial sites, or on roadways. Of the 140 DPP non-agricultural exposures, 97
(69%) occurred at residential sites. Thir ty-seven (26%) of the individuals were
working at the time of exposure and 103 (74%) were not at work.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 60

## Table 33. Exposure Site for Non-Agricultural, Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases, 2004*

Exposure Site Occupational Non-Occupational

Residential building or grounds (home, apt) 8 89

Other institution (school, church, prison) 6 3

Office, retail or service businesses 11 5

Park, lake, golf course, camp grounds 2 2

Roads or vehicles 3 3

Industry, warehousing, other manufacturing 7 0

Area-wide mosquito application 0 1

Total non-agricultural pesticide use 37 103

* Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.



## Non-Agricultural Occupational

In 2004, 37 non-agricultural cases occurred on-the-job; 28 were males and 9
were females. Fourteen of the 37 cases were handling pesticides at the time of
exposure. The following example is a non-a gricultural, occupational incident from

2004:

A lawn care technician pumped up a small hand-held spray applicator. The hose was not

securely attached to the tank and popped off under pressure, spraying him in the face. He

washed his eye and sought medical treatment.



## Non-Agricultural Non-Occupational

In 2004, 103 exposures occurred where the person was not working and the
release was not associated with agriculture. Nineteen were children and 84 were
adults over the age of 18. Of the 84 adu lts, more were women (46) than men
(38). Eighty-nine of the 103 non-occupational cases occurred in homes (Table
33).

The following is an example of a non-agricultural, non-occupational case
classified as definitely related to the exposure:

A 72 year old male homeowner used his bar e hands to apply a pesticide powder/paste to

holes where bees were entering his log home. He mixed 5 pounds of 10% dust in water to

form the paste. He also sprayed two cans of wasp spray on the holes. He wore no

personal protective equipment in violation of the pesticide label. He sought medical care

for moderate gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 61

## Non-Agricultural Non-Occupational Exposures to Applications by NonProfessional and Professional Applicators

In 2004, 93 (90%) of the 103 non-agric ultural, non-occupational DPP cases
involved exposures to pesticide applicat ions by non-professional applicators
(unpaid individuals, co-workers, home-owners) (Table 34). Ten cases were
exposed to applications by prof essional (paid) applicators.

The 93 non-professional applicatio ns involved pesticide treatments of:

• ornamental weeds, insects or snails (27)

• insects in the home (21)

• treatments to people or pets for flea s, lice, or biting insects (18)

• herbicides treatments moss or weeds (10) or

• accidental ingestion or release of pesticide products (17)

Of the 10 cases in which individuals were exposed to applications made by paid,
professional applicators, 9 in volved herbicide applications to moss or weeds and
one involved an area-wide mosquito application (Table 34).

Table 34. Target Pest for Non-Agricultural, Non-Occupational Cases Exposed to Pesticide Applications by Professional* and Non-Professional Applicators, 2004**

Professional Applications Non-Professional Applications

Landscape/Garden Use

Weeds and moss 4 18

Insects 0 8

Snails 0 1

Use In/Around Structures

Insects (fleas, wasps, spiders, ants) 5 21

Moss/weeds 0 10

Applications to People/Pets

Lice 0 6

Insect repellents 0 6

Applications to pets for fleas 0 6

Accidental release or ingestion 0 17

Area-wide

Mosquitoes 1 0

Total 10 93

* Professional is defined as persons paid (licensed or un licensed) to apply the pesticide.

** Limited to cases with illness classified by DOH as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide

exposure.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 62

# Grandview Pesticide Fire

In 2005, DOH conducted a community-wide investigation following a pesticide

warehouse fire in Grandview. Data from follow-up on cases during the
investigation will not be entered in the DOH data system of pesticide-related
events because environmental monitoring and biomonitoring were largely
negative for pesticides. As there is much to learn from the incident, the DOH
investigation is described below.

On Wednesday January 26, 2005, a warehouse at the Wilbur Ellis Facility in
Grandview Washington caught fire. Over 200 pesticides, fertilizers and other
agricultural products burned. People within one-half mile of the burning

warehouse were evacuated from their homes. An estimated 300-400 residents

and business owners were evacuated. A 13-mile section of State Highway 82
between Prosser and Sunnyside was closed by state patrol for more than 12
hours. Grandview’s high school, middle school, and McClure Elementary School,
all located approximately one mile south of the fire, turned off their ventilation
systems and kept children inside. Shelters were set up by the American Red
Cross for evacuated residents. The newspaper reported that 175 evacuated
residents registered for shelter.

The response involved many parti es including the: Grandview Police
Department, 11 local fire departments, Washington State Patrol, Ecology, EPA,
private contractors for Wi lbur-Ellis, and local and state departments of health.
The fire burned for two and a half days. People were allowed to return to their
homes Friday evening after air sampling and swab sampling indicated the
inhalation hazard had passed.

DOH played a supporting role by providing technical assistance to local health
authorities and other state and local agencies. DOH also conducted pesticideillness monitoring according to state law. During follow-up on possible pesticiderelated illnesses, DOH identified multiple persons who sought health care for
symptoms from inhaling smoke. DOH also tracked the results of medical
monitoring of emergency responders.

Smoke-related Illnesses in the Surrounding Community

DOH identified 48 people who sought health care for symptoms associated with
breathing smoke from the fire (Figure 13). There were an additional 5 people with
complicated medical histories who were admitted to Prosser Hospital as a
precaution and for nursing support until they could return to their normal
residences. Four of these individuals were from a nursing care facility outside the
half mile evacuation zone and one person was from an evacuated house.

DOH identified an additional 8 persons w ho reported symptoms but were not
seen by health care providers (Figure 13). However, DOH cannot estimate the
number of ill persons who did not seek health care in the local area. Smoke from
burning buildings is known to cause eye and respiratory irritation and can

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 63

## exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions. There were likely numerous
people who experienced mild symptoms but did not seek health care.

Figure 13. People Reporting Symptoms and/or Receiving Medical Care

Seen in ER or hospitalized (n=53)

Reported symptoms (n=56)

Combination of seen in ER or

hospitalized and reported symptoms

(n=48) 5 8 48



## Table 35 shows the number of people repor ting symptoms; 75% of the identified
community members with symptoms report ed respiratory symptoms. Most of the
symptoms were mild to moderate and included coughing, burning in nose or
throat. A subset also described some ty pe of labored breathing. Many of these
people had a history of asthma or other respiratory conditions.

Table 35. People Reporting Symptoms from the Grandview Fire

Symptom Type and Description Reporting Symptom Total Percentage

Respiratory irritation (cough, burning in nose/throat, sore throat) 40 71%

Labored breathing (wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness). All but 2 also reported respiratory irritation. 15 27%

Headache. Some headaches persisted for several days 35 63%

Nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain 32 57%

Dizziness, weakness or other systemic symptoms 19 34%

Eye irritation (watering or burning in eyes) 18 32%

Numbness or tingling in tongue or face 6

Burning rash or urticaria on face or neck 5



## Follow-up of Emergency Responders

DOH efforts identified 67 emergency respond ers that either reported symptoms
or received some type of occupational health monitoring. Several firefighters,
state patrolmen, and spill response expert s sought medical care for symptoms
but most emergency responders reported no symptoms. All firefighters and many
of the Grandview city employees involved in the response had basic blood tests
plus a test for cholinesterase inhibition. The cholinesterase test was done to

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 64

## detect over-exposure to the most acutel y toxic pesticides that burned in the

warehouse. All cholinesterase resu lts were within normal limits.

Sampling for Pesticides in Air

Air samples for pesticide active ingredients conduct ed by the EPA and
Washington State University were negat ive or detected pesticides only at
concentrations well below the EPA levels of concern. However, pesticide
sampling was initiated on the second day of the fire and may have missed
pesticides present in the initial smoke. Swab samples for pesticide residues were
also negative. This suggests that the fire did not result in widespread deposition
of pesticide residues in the community.

Of course, smoke from burning buildings is irritating and toxic and may contain

hazardous concentrations of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen
cyanide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides. Burning pesticides and fertilizers would
contribute combustion byproducts to the smoke and result in higher levels of
sulfur oxides, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, and ammonia. Early reports of
a strong sulfur-like smell in the smoke suggest that this was the case.



# Highlights of DOH Preven tion Activities 2005

Local, State and Federal Government

The DOH Pesticide Program provides technical assistance to state and local
agencies on pesticide toxicology and human health. In 2005, assistance was
provided to Department of Transportati on (herbicide risk assessment review),
Ecology (aquatic herbicide permits), WSDA (gypsy moth eradication projects in
Silverdale and Seattle), and L&I (cholinesterase monitoring for farm workers).
DOH also provided assistance to count y health departments, including Yakima
County (health advice for people living n ear a pesticide warehouse fire), King
County (review of pesticide hazards at daycares), and Thurston County
(toxicology support for pesticide re views required by County policy).

DOH, with assistance from WSDA, co nducted a presentation about the PIRT
Panel and current pesticide issues to t he State Senate Agricultural Committee.
DOH prepared a briefing sheet for the State House Commerce and Labor
Committee’s agricultural safety and health tour in Yakima.

DOH forwarded pesticide illness monito ring data to NIOSH for compilation of
national pesticide illness statistics, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/

.

In 2005, DOH sent the followi ng product issues to EPA:

DOH Case 040222: An 18 year old worker experienced severe eye
reaction after accidental splash of Deep Woods Off for Sportsmen Insect
Repellent IV (EPA registration no. 4822-397). He rinsed his eye within five
minutes and received medical attention within 20 minutes of exposure. He

still sustained a corneal burn with almo st total loss of corneal epithelium.
His burn healed slowly over 14 day s. There are many cases of eye
exposure to other repellent formulations reported to DOH during mosquito

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 65

## season. Most are managed at home and symptoms resolve quickly. DOH
alerted EPA that this formula appears to be particularly harmful to eyes.
DOH questioned whether this is a reasonably safe formulation for
consumer use, especially given that many effective repellents in safer

formulations are available.

DOH case 050182: A 56 year old female placed a new flea collar on her
elderly cat before going to work. The flea collar was Hartz Advanced Care

3 in 1 Control collar for Cat (EPA Registration no. 2596-139). The product
contains methoprene (1.02%), te trachlorvinphos (14.55%), and
undisclosed other ingredients (84.43%). The woman noted a strong odor in
the house upon her return that evening. Both she and the cat had systemic
symptoms consistent with organop hosphate insecticide exposure. She
removed the collar, opened windows and turned on fans. Symptoms
resolved in two days. This case was unusual in that it is not normal to smell
a strong odor with flea collars, or to experience symptoms after this type of

use. DOH alerted EPA that this was a possible product defect and to look
for similar cases involving this product.

DOH met with federal officials at EPA and Centers for Disease Control to present
data and share health concerns about fumigant pesticides. DOH submitted

written comments and state data to EPA during the public comment period for
metam-sodium re-registration. Concerns raised by DOH, based on case
investigation data, included 1) the gl ove recommendation on the metam-sodium
label may need to be more specific, 2) the importance of considering the main
breakdown product, methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), in the re-registration process,
3) regulation of metam sodium drift, 4) the importance of measuring MITC in air
during enforcement investigations, and 5) the importance of modeling
Washington’s chemigation applications of metam-sodium in EPA’s risk
assessment of bystander exposures. DO H comments are included in Appendix

G.

Licensed Pesticide Applicators

Staff conducted multiple presentations to educate licensed pesticide applicators
on the prevention of pesticide-related illness. Presentations were conducted at
professional meetings and at Washington State University and WSDA continuing
education courses. Presentations were in English or Spanish and covered acute
and chronic effects of pesticides, safety, and cholinesterase monitoring. DOH
published an article on proper use of personal protective equipment in the WSDA

newsletter which reaches 28,000 licensed pesticide applicators in the state,
http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Publications/docs/2005PesticideNotes.pdf . DOH
collaborated with partners to devel op an educational video on proper
decontamination for pesticide handlers. The video will be completed in 2006 and
will be available in Spanish and English.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 66

## Farm Workers and General Agricultural Community

Staff members regularly attend and occasi onally present at meetings of the
Commission on Hispanic affairs. Our bilingual staff were guests of Spanish radio

station KDNA in Yakima on three occasi ons. During the shows they spoke about
pesticides and health issues and answered caller’s questions. Staff conducted a
presentation at the Migrant Stream Fo rum in San Diego and staffed a booth at

the Latina Health Fair in Seattle. Staff participated in worker protection training
conducted by WSDA and L&I, and met with farm worker advocates at the
Northwest Justice Project and Columbia Legal Services. DOH Pesticide Program
bilingual staff assisted other DOH progr ams in translating health educational
recordings and materials into Spanish.

Outreach to Agricultural Growers Groups

DOH staff members maintain contact with agricultural grower groups at regular
board meetings of the Pesticide Advi sory Board, the Washington State
Commission on Pesticide Registration and the Washington Friends of Farms and
Forests. Staff presented information about emerging scientific evidence on longterm health effects of pesticide exposure to the Washington Friends of Farms
and Forests annual legislative meeting.

Urban Consumer Education

DOH revised and expanded the Pesticide Pr ogram website with online resources

for consumers, http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/pest/default.htm , participates in the
continuing development of the interagency website UPEST,
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/upest/ . A new module that will help
consumers control indoor home pests us ing Integrated Pest Management is
under development for the UPEST website.

This year DOH focused on promoting Integrated Pest Management approaches
to pest management in schools. Staff co-aut hored a report in the Journal of the
American Medical Association on pesticide illness data in schools,
http://jama.ama-assn.org/c gi/content/short/294/4/455 , prepared state web pages
on pesticide incidents in Washington schools, http://devwww/ehp/ts/Pest/pestschool-wadata.htm , organized presentations on Integrated Pest Management for

schools, and revised the UPEST websit e that aids Washington schools in
adopting Integrated Pest Management.

Health Care Providers

DOH launched a new web resource for health care providers on the revised and
expanded Pesticide Program Web site. The new pages have details about how
and why to report pesticide-related illnesses, what happens when a case is
reported, how to identify the pesticide involved, taking an exposure history,
resources for clinical management of pesticide-related illnesses, how to refer
possible violations to state enforcement agencies, and downloadable fact sheets
for patients on a number of safety topics.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 67

## Another main effort this year has been to organize and send case investigation
findings to the treating health care provider and to send annual investigation

summaries to local health officers. This is described in greater detail in the PIRT
Panel Activities section on page 13.

DOH published a paper with the Federal Drug Administration, the Centers for
Disease Control, and other states alerting health care providers and other public
health officials about the acute hazards of lindane prescriptions for lice and

scabies control, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pr eview/mmwrhtml/mm5421a2.htm

.
Partnerships

Staff from the Pesticide Program participate on various Advisory Boards,

Stakeholder Committees, and other or ganizations around the state:

Catholic Rural Life "Protecting Our Future": a Pesticide Education Project

Cholinesterase Monitoring Stakeholder Committee for L&I

Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State
University

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center "For Healthy Kids",

Governor’s Pesticide Advisory Board

Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health "Projecto Bienestar"

Pesticide Incident Review and Tracking Panel (Chair)

Spanish Public Radio KDNA (President, Community Advisory Board)

Thurston County Vegetation Management Board

Washington Friends of Farm and Fore sts (non-voting, advisory member)

Washington State Commission on Pest icide Registration (non-voting
member)

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 68

# Labor and Industries

Washington State Department of Labor and I ndustries’ summary of pesticide-related activity for 2004.



# Background

Four divisions in the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) are involved in
pesticide-related activities: L&I Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act
(WISHA) Services, L&I Specialty Compliance Services, L&I Field Services, and

L&I Industrial Insurance Services.

• WISHA has a mandate to ensure workplace safety and health. WISHA
Services create workplace safety and health regulations, provide
stakeholder training and outreach, hol d the Annual Governor’s Safety
Conference and Agricultural Safety Day, handle appeals of safety and
health inspections, and generate the L&I section of the PIRT report.

• Employers can request no cost safe ty consultations from L&I Field

Services. These consultations are confidential and will not be discussed
in this report.

• The L&I Specialty Compliance program issues farm labor contractor
licenses, enforces agricultural wages, breaks, rest periods,
recordkeeping requirements, and prohibited jobs for teens.

• L&I Insurance Services may provide Risk Management and Loss Control
assessments. The Safety & Health Assessment & Research for
Prevention group may investigate pest icide-related issues. The Claims
Program administers wage replacement and medical benefits through
worker compensation to Washington workers who become ill or injured
on the job.

The pesticide-related activities of WI SHA Services and Industrial Insurance
Services are included in this PIRT report.



# Cholinesterase Monitoring

The Department of Labor and Industries adopted Chapter 296-307-148 WAC,
Cholinesterase Monitoring, in December 2003. The cholinesterase monitoring
rule became effective February 1, 2004. This rule requires agricultural employers
to document hours employees spend handling toxicity category I or II
organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides.
Over-exposure to these pesticides results in depression in cholinesterase
activity. Employers are required to offer employees the opportunity to participate
in the cholinesterase monitoring progra m if their number of handling hours of
target pesticides is expected to exceed the threshold as defined by the rule.
Workers receive baseline testing prior to use of covered pesticides and then
blood cholinesterase levels are tested periodically during the application season.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 69

## Monitoring cholinesterase activity in the blood can detect cholinesterase
depression prior to t he onset of illness.

The changes for the 2005 season included:

• The health care provider sent the Cholinesterase Monitoring Handling
Hours report to the Public Health Lab with the test requisition.

• The health care provider obtained wri tten authorization from participating
handlers to share test results with the employer.

• L&I Policy and Technical Services verified that physicians notified the
employer of the worker with a cholinesterase depression to the exposure
removal level and coordinated a schedule for follow-up monitoring of

these handlers.

• Use of a 30-hour exposure threshold prompting employers to refer
handlers for medical evaluation and testing.

• Dedication of a single research invest igator from L&I to conduct worksite
visits for cholinesterase depressions meeting criteria for a work practice
evaluation or exposure removal.

To encourage participation in cholinesterase monitoring, L&I held numerous
outreach and training workshops on the rule for the grower and medical provider
communities throughout the state.

Cholinesterase Monitoring Results for 2005

Based on the Scientific Advisory Committee for Cholinesterase Monitoring,
January 17, 2006, Final Report, Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers
in Agriculture: 2005 , 2263 workers participated in the cholinesterase monitoring
program during 2005. A baseline test was performed for each enrolled worker. A
total of 611 workers who had reached the pesticide-handling hour threshold for
30 hours in 30 consecutive days had subs equent periodic testing. Workplace
evaluations were triggered for a total of 59 workers. The alerts indicated
cholinesterase depression of more than 20% from baselines. Ten of these alerts
were issued to workers with cholinesterase depressions requiring removal from
further exposures to pesticides (depre ssions greater than 30% for RBC and 40%
for serum). The data suggests that 9. 6% of the 611 workers who had periodic
testing had cholinesterase depression at the time of periodic testing during 2005.

Health care providers sent the pesticide handling-hours reports to the DOH
Public Health Laboratory with each peri odic test request. The laboratory
forwarded the handling reports to L&I. Pesticide handling reports were submitted
for 565 (92%) of the 611 pesticide handlers during the 2005 season. This is a
substantial improvement from 2004 when approximately 70% of handling reports
were submitted. No significant relationship was found for handling hours and
RBC (red blood cell) cholinesterase. A small but significant relationship was
found for serum (plasma) cholinesterase. On average, a 0.053% serum
cholinesterase depression could be expected for every hour spent handling

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 70

## category I or II organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. This equates
to an approximate 1.5% serum cholines terase depression for every 30 hours
spent handling in the 30 days prior to testing; a very small decrease.

If L&I finds that a worker experienced symptoms that could be associated with
the cholinesterase depression, the case is referred to DOH for investigation. L&I
referred 2 cases to DOH during 2005. After investigation DOH determined that
neither of the illnesses was associated with organophosphate or N-methyl
carbamate exposure.

During 2004, L&I conducted confidential consultations with employers at more
than 40 locations to evaluate workplaces where employees had cholinesterase
depressions compared to their baseline test s. Because of the confidential nature
of these consultations, they are not included in this report. L&I also conducted
research investigations with employers to evaluate workplaces where employees
had cholinesterase depressions compared to their baseline tests.

The preliminary results of cholinesterase monitoring for 2005 were compared to
the results from 2004. The number of participants in 2005 was down somewhat
from 2004 but the rate for persons getting follow-up testing was up 30 percent.
Improvements in the cholinesterase monitoring program in 2005 included 1) lab
baselines were done faster going down from 24 days to 1 or 2 days, 2) L&I
notifications of depressions went from 7 days to 3 days, and 3) the amount of
time between the notice of depression and initiation of an investigation went from
35 days to 9 days.

More information on the cholinesterase monitoring rule is available at the L&I
cholinesterase monitoring Web site
http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/default.asp

.
The Science Advisory Committee’s initial analysis and recommendations based

on 2004 data is available online at
http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/final.pdf

.
The L&I Reports to the legislature are av ailable online. The report on the first
year of cholinesterase monitoring can be found at
http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/Ato Z/Cholinesterase/files/ChELegRpt2004Fi
nal.pdf

. 

# WISHA Services Division

To enforce safety and health in the wo rkplace, L&I WISHA staff members may
issue citations requiring employers to implement changes in the workplace.
WISHA citations can be categorized as “serious” or “general”. A serious violation
presents a “substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could

result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means,
methods, operations or processes which have been adopted or are in use, in the
workplace...”. A general violation is a si tuation where the “m ost serious injury,
illness or disease that would be likely to result from a hazardous condition cannot
be reasonably predicted to cause death or serious physical harm to exposed

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 71

## employees, but does have a direct and immediate relationship to their safety and
health”. Both categories of citations require employers to implement changes in
the workplace. Serious violations have penalties assigned and follow-up
inspections may be performed to assure compliance.

This section summarizes the results of pesticide-related safety and health
inspections conducted by L&I WISHA. A descr iption of each of the inspections is
provided in Appendix C. The number of pes ticide-related inspections increased in
2004 (Figure 14). Of the 43 inspections, 34 (79%) were located in eastern
Washington and 9 were located in western Washington.

Figure 14. WISHA Workplace Safety and Health Inspections, 2000 - 2004

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004



## WISHA Inspections

Part of the increase in the number of WISHA pesticide-related inspections in
2004 was due to the L&I program targeting workplaces covered by the
cholinesterase rule. L&I reviewed the hourly pesticide handling records and
evaluated cholinesterase rule participati on for 19 agricultural workplaces. This
accounted for 44% of the 43 inspections in 2004.

Of the 43 pesticide-related WISHA inspecti ons in 2004, 5 were the result of
referrals from state agencies, health care providers and others. Six inspections
were initiated in response to employee or employee representative complaints.
Thirty were programmed inspections identified through the scheduling list and 2
were follow-up inspections.

All of the 2004 inspections occurred in agricultural environments. Figure 15
shows the inspections by type of work place. Twenty-eight (65%) of the
inspections involved orchards. The “Other” workplace classification included one
each of the following: cabbage farm, potato farm, onion processor, egg
processing plant, livestock facility, dairy, and ornamental tree farm.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 72

## Figure 15. WISHA Inspections by Type of Workplace, 2004

Orchard (28) Seeds (2) Vineyard (2) Berry (4) Other (7)



## WISHA Inspections Involving Violations

WISHA issues general and serious violations involving pesticides. L&I issued
citations to the employer in 18 inspections. Several inspections resulted in both serious and general citations. Monetary penalties totaling $6,090 were assessed
for 17 serious citations from 8 inspections. General citations with no penalties
were issued in 16 of the 43 inspections. No citations were issued to the employer
in 25 inspections.

The following is an example of a WISHA inspection involving violations:

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 73Employees were mixing, loading and applying pes ticides including Lorsban 4E, Procure 50WS,

Supreme oil c-c, or Guthion. After inspection, f our general citations were issued to the employer

for the following violations. The general ci tations did not involve monetary penalties.

1) No eyewash capable of deliveri ng at least 1.5 liters (0.4 gals.) of water per minute for fifteen

minutes was available at the pesticide mixi ng and loading or handler decontamination sites

although the label requires protective eyewear because of the potential for eye injury.

2) Ten applicators did not have a pint of wate r. If the pesticide labeling requires protective

eyewear, as was the case with the pesticides used at the subject workplace, each handler

shall have at least one pint of water immediat ely available on the v ehicle or aircraft for

emergency eye flushing.

3) Applicators were not using respirator canister s. The label for Guthion requires that applicators

use a respirator canister approv ed for pesticides or an organic vapor cartridge / canister with

any N, R, P or HE prefilter. Vapor and gas re moving respirators do not provide protection

against particulate contaminants and r equire a filter change-out schedule.

4) The employer did not display pesticide safety information and pesticides were applied within

the last thirty days and handlers were on the establishment.



## The most frequent type of serious and g eneral WISHA violations cited in 2004

were:



# • Respirator deficiencies including no respirator program, improper storage
or cleaning of respirators, no medi cal evaluations of worker’s ability to
wear a respirator, no respirator fit-testing.



# • Hazard communication deficiencies in safety programs including
employee training and chemical labeling.



# • Plumbed eyewash for a pesticide-mixing site or emergency pint of water
for eye flushing was not provided.



# • Cholinesterase Rule related including no cholinesterase monitoring
program, no pesticide handling hours recorded, no training.



# • Employee training about pesticides and their hazards.



# • Deficiencies in appropriate personal protective equipment.



# • Accident Prevention Program deficiencies.



# • Not posting safety, emergency or pest icide spray information as required.



# • No required safety meetings.



# • No pesticide application records.



# • No hand-washing facilities.

General and serious violations involving pesticides are categorized by type of
violation in Figure 16.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 74

## Figure 16. WISHA General and Serious Violations Involving Pesticides, 2004

0 5 10 15 20 Resipratory Protection Hazard Communication Posting Eyewash/Rinse Cholinesterase Related Accident Prevention Program Safety Meetings

Potable Water Pesticide Handler Training PPE Application Records Hand-washing Facilities

General Serious



# L&I Claims Insurance Services Di vision, Claims Administration Program

The Insurances Services Division, Claims Administration Program processes
workers’ compensation claims initiated by on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In
2004, the Claims Administration Program received 101 claims where the injury or
illness initially appeared to be related to pesticide exposure (Table 36). The
number of pesticide-related claims decreased by 17% from 2003.

L&I accepts or rejects a claim based on w hether a work-related in jury or illness is
diagnosed. Compensation is determined in accordance with the following

definitions:

• Medical Only/Non-Compensable Claim: A worker experienced
symptoms that he/she believes occurred from exposure on-the-job and
seeks medical evaluation. The physici an finds the symptoms related to
the exposure and there is objective ev idence of injury. Therefore, the
claim is allowed and medical evaluation and any follow-up medical

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 75

## care/treatment costs are paid. The employee misses less than three
days of work. These lost workdays ar e not reimbursed to the employee.

• Time Loss/Compensable Claim: A worker has an allowable claim and
misses more than three days of work immediately following an exposure
on the job. The worker is paid a portion of salary while unable to work. All

related medical costs are covered.

• Rejected Claims: Initial diagnostic and medical evaluation costs are
covered but the claim is rejected because objective evidence is lacking to
relate symptoms to the workplace exposure. Claims may be rejected
because symptoms have resolved by the time treatment is obtained, there
is no objective evidence of injury, the worker may not yet have symptoms
of illness from the exposure, or exposure cannot be confirmed or
documented. A rejected status can be appealed and is often reevaluated,
but, once final, the worker can no longer reopen a claim based on original
symptoms. Illness claims may be either opened or reopened up to two
years after the onset of delayed sympto ms. Costs of initial medical visits
are usually paid.

• Pending : Additional information is being collected on the claim before a

determination can be made.

• Kept on Salary: The employer elects to pay the claimant’s salary instead
of L&I paying time loss payments while the employee is recovering from
an injury or illness.

Table 36. Status of L&I Claims Initia lly Related to Pesticides, 2000 - 2004

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Medical Only Non-compensable 115 75 79 83 70

Time Loss/ Compensable 11 8 4 4 4

Rejected 52 45 26 45 26

Pending/Unknown 2 - - 1 1

Kept on Salary - 1 - - -

Total 180 129 109 133 101



## Claims categorized as Medical only and Time lossare compensated as workrelated injuries. Of the 101 claims in 2004, 74 (73.4%) were compensated by L&I
as being work related injuries. L&I paid either time-loss or medical benefits for a total of $39,448.06. In 2004, there were slightly fewer claims than in each of the

previous four years.

As noted in the Rejected Claims definit ion above, most rejected claims were
compensated for initial diagnostic and m edical evaluations costs even if evidence
was lacking to relate the symptoms to the work place.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 76

## L&I Claims Reported to Department of Health

L&I refers claims involving pesticides to DOH to investigate whether the illness is
pesticide-related. A claim that is initia lly reported as pesticide-related could be
accepted by L&I as work-r elated then DOH could investi gate and classify it as
unrelated to pesticide exposure.

L&I referred 101 claims to DOH to investigate during 2004 (Table 37). L&I

assessed 74 of the 101 claims as work-r elated. Of the 74 claims that L&I
assessed as valid work related injuries, DOH classified 53 (72%) as definitely,
probably, or possibly related to pestici des (DPP). Based on the DOH criteria, the

other 21 were classified as either: insufficient evidence to assess the link with
pesticides, suspicious, or unlikely to be related to pesticide exposure. Of the 26
claims that L&I rejected, DOH classified 15 as DPP.

Table 37 illustrates the difference in ev aluation criteria and perspective between
the two agencies.

Table 37. Comparison of L&I Claims and DOH Classification Status, 2004

DOH Classification L&I Claim

Determination Definite Probable Possible Insuf Inf Suspicious Unlikely Total

Medical Only/ Non-compensable 16 15 18 10 5 6 70

Time Loss/ Compensable 2 2 -- -- -- -- 4

Rejected 3 4 8 7 1 3 26

Pending/Unknown -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1

Kept on Salary -- -- -- -- -- -- 0

Total 21 21 26 18 6 9 101



## Seventy-three of the 101 claims L&I referred to DOH for evaluation were
agricultural. DOH classified 44 of the 73 as DPP. Of the 44 DPP agricultural
workers, 26 claims involved workers in the fruit industry.

Agricultural case: An applicator sought medical care for dermal symptoms on both

sides of his neck. He had been sprayi ng several pesticide products on apples and

cherries for several days prior to developing symptoms.

Non-agricultural case: Two carpenters were working underneath a wooden deck

when it was sprayed with a pesticide fr om above. They inhaled the product and had

dermal exposures.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 77

## The 23 DPP non-agricultural cases worked in a variety of professions including
landscaping, construction, pest contro l, retail, teaching, and others.

Occupational exposures are described in detail in the DOH Section under
Occupational Cases of Pest icide-Related Illness.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 78

# Washington Poison Center

Washington Poison Center’s summary of phone calls received concerning human exposure to pesticides during 2004.



# Background

Washington Poison Center (WPC) provides 24-hour emergency medical
assistance, information, and education about toxic substances or suspected
poisons by way of a toll-free telephone number. Pesticide-related calls to WPC
include intentional and unintentional human exposures, confirmed and nonconfirmed exposures, and requests for info rmation only. WPC also receives calls
concerning rodenticides, animal exposures, and other pesticide issues.



# Human Exposure Calls

In 2004, WPC received 2,342 calls concer ning human exposures to pesticides.
Pesticide-related human exposure calls have been consistently about 3% of total
human exposure calls to WPC (Table 38).

Table 38. WPC Human Exposure to Pesticide Calls, 2000 - 2004

Pesticide 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fungicide 99 94 64 53 56

Herbicide 453 404 347 368 422

Fumigant 0 4 9 10 7

Insecticide 1,229 1,128 1,110 1,016 1,302

Insect repellent 101 89 96 156 155

Animal repellent 0 1 3 5 17

Moth repellent 50 53 40 30 39

Rodenticide 394 398 374 299 344

Total* 2,326 2,171 2,043 1,937 2,342

Percent of Total Human Exposure Calls 3.1% 3% 2.9% 2.9% 3.6%

Total WPC Human Exposure

Calls** 74,808 71,675 70,298 65,857 67,517

* Includes human exposure calls that may or may not involve illness.

**Does not include information-only calls (no ident ifiable patient) or confirmed non-exposures.



## WPC classifies a call as a Human Exposure when a caller reports that they or
someone else inhaled, ingested, injected, or inserted a pesticide, or got a
pesticide on their skin or in their eyes. Human exposure calls also include
situations where the caller only suspec ts that there was an exposure to a

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 79

## pesticide. Most human exposure calls do not involve subsequent symptoms.
Additional information about severity of human exposures is provided below.
Calls for information that only concern pesticides are classified as ‘No Identifiable

Patient’ and are not considered exposures. For ex ample, a call to find out if using
a pyrethrin-based ant killer in the home would be a risk to small children living

there is classified as ‘N o Identifiable Patient’.

Between 2000 and 2003, the total number of calls to WPC regarding all human
exposures, including pesticides, had been decreasing here as well as in other
areas throughout the Pacific Northwest. In 2004, however, there was a slight
(2.5%) increase in human exposure calls (T able 38). Pesticide exposures relative
to total exposures rose slightly (0.7%) to 3.6% of the calls, whereas in 2003,
pesticide exposures accounted for 2.9% of all exposure calls to WPC.

The increase in the number of calls concerning human exposure to insect
repellents observed in 2003 continued in 2004. These calls should be monitored
and used to develop education about insect repellent safety. The increase in
calls may reflect increased use because of public concern about West Nile virus.



# WPC Human Exposure Calls Reported to Department of Health

By Washington State law, health care pr oviders are required to report pesticide
poisoning to the Department of Health (WAC 246-100-101). Health care
providers may report cases by calling the WPC. WPC helps manage the case

and then forwards the information to DOH.

In 2004, WPC reported 305 human pesticide illness calls to DOH. The individuals
either reported signs an d/or symptoms of pestici de illness or experienced a
pesticide exposure that could potentially result in development of symptoms. Of
the 305 reports, 155 (51%) did not meet the DOH criteria for investigation
because the exposure had not resulted in symptoms, was part of a suicide
gesture, was unlikely related to the reported symptoms, occurred more than
three months before the report, occurred out of state, or, in a few cases, the

referral contained insufficient informatio n for follow-up. DOH investigated 150 of
the 305 WPC reports. After investigati on, DOH determined that 128 illnesses
were definitely (47), probably (28), or possibly (53) related to the pesticide
exposure (Table 39). These 128 illnesses are included in the detailed analyses of
definite, probable, and possible cases in the DOH Section of this report.

In December, 2004, DOH investigated a sample of the pesticide-related calls
involving illness where the person had not sought medical care. Thirteen of the
observed increase in DPP cases resulted from the sample.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 80

## Table 39. Pesticide-related Calls Reported to DOH by WPC, 2000 - 2004

Year Reported to DOH Investigated by DOH DOH DPP (%*)

2000 204 113 70 (62%)

2001 152 68 30 (44%)

2002 199 106 73 (69%)

2003 258 122 88 (72%)

2004 305 150 128 (85%)

* Percentage of cases investigated by DOH classifi ed as definitely, probably or possibly related to

the pesticide exposure.



## Of the 128 WPC calls that DOH determined to be illnesses definitely, probably or
possibly related to pesticides in 2004, 88 involved residential exposures, 16
involved agricultural exposures, and 15 occurred in other public settings.

In 2004, there were 19 WPC calls involv ing children under the age of 19 that
DOH determined were definitely, probably or possibly related to the pesticide
exposure. Six of the children sprayed th emselves in the face with aerosol
pesticides. Four children had symptoms from exposure to lice treatment
products; 3 of the exposures were from shampoo applications that got into the
child’s eyes and 1 child ingested the product. One child was exposed to a cat
treated for fleas, and 1 infant was ill after being held by her grandmother who had

used DEET.

A 9-year-old child took a sip of Round-up stored in a pop can. She reported burning in

her mouth and gastrointestinal symptoms and was taken to the Emergency Room.

A 16-month-old child was found sucking on a bottle containing pyrethroid. He vomited

several times and was taken to the Emergency Room.



# Type of Pesticides Involved in WPC Human Exposure Calls

As in the past, more than half of the hum an exposure calls involved insecticides.
Table 40 illustrates WPC exposure calls by pesticide type for different age
groups for 2004. More than half (55%) of the pesticide calls were about
insecticides (1,302).

In 2004, WPC received 422 calls about pot ential herbicide exposures. This was
18% of the 2,342 pesticide calls (Table 40) . Twenty-six percent (111) of herbicide
calls involved 2,4-D or other chlorophenoxy herbicides (i.e., MCPA, MCPP, and
2,4,5-T) and 32% (133) involved exposure to glyphosate (the active ingredient in
Round-up).

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 81

## Table 40. WPC Pesticide-Related Exposures By Age of Case, 2004

Pesticide Type <6 Years 6-19 Years >19 Years Unk Age Total Calls

Fungicide 10 4 40 2 56

Herbicide 103 44 274 1 422

Fumigant 1 0 6 0 7

Insecticide 372 159 760 11 1,302

Animal repellent 6 2 9 0 17

Insect repellent 92 40 23 0 155

Moth repellent 26 3 10 0 39

Rodenticide 253 23 66 2 344

Totals 863 275 1,188 16 2,342



## Table 41 lists the types of insecticides involved in human exposure calls to WPC
for 2000 through 2004. Because the product involved in an incident frequently
involves more than one type of pesticide, the total number of insecticides does
not represent individual exposures.

Table 41. WPC Type of Insecticide Involved in Human Exposure Calls,

2000 - 2004

Generic description 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Arsenic 10 3 6 8 5

Borates/Boric Acid 28 20 33 22 29

Carbamate only 29 35 46 37 60

Carbamate with other pesticides 11 6 9 19 27

Chlorinated hydrocarbon only 61 48 29 26 20

Chlorinated hydrocarbon with other insecticide 3 2 4 3 4

Metaldehyde 43 26 31 22 36

Organophosphate only 301 209 198 124 137

Organophosphate with carbamate 3 3 4 0 1

Organophosphate with chlorinated hydrocarbons 6 4 1 0 0

Organophosphate with other pesticide 36 26 36 28 45

Organophosphate/Carbamate/Chlorinated hydrocarbons 1 0 1 0 0

Piperonyl butoxide/Pyrethrins/Pyrethroids 304 432 418 405 529

Repellents (Insect) 101 89 96 156 155

Rotenone 1 1 2 1 3

Veterinary insecticide 135 74 6 6 11

Other 112 114 155 181 266

Unknown 142 123 128 128 124

Total 1,330 1,217 1,203 1,166 1,452

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 82

## For 2004, 270 (19%) of the reported inse cticides involved pesticides containing
organophosphates (183) and carbamates (87).



# Severity of Human Exposures to Pesticides

WPC classifies human exposure calls by severity of medical outcome. The
definitions used by WPC to define severity are listed below:

Minor Effect : Symptoms are minimally bothersome and resolved rapidly
(e.g., skin irritation, first-degree skin burn, transient
cough, mild systemic symptoms such as nausea or
headache).

Moderate Effect Symptoms are more pronounced, more prolonged or
more systemic in nature. Usually some form of medical
treatment is indicated (e.g., corneal abrasion,
disorientation, pronounced wheezing, brief seizures that
respond readily to treatment).

Major Effect Symptoms are life-threatening or resulted in significant
residual disability. Medical treatment is required (e.g.,
repeated seizures, acute cho linergic crisis, respiratory
compromise requiring intubation).

WPC follows up on calls by calling back to the home, workplace, or health care
facility for the exposures where there are moderate or major effects present at
the time of the call or there is a high potential for moderate or major symptoms to
develop based on the history given by the caller or an evaluation of the

substance.

The number of WPC exposures with medical outcomes does not match the
number of pesticide-related calls referred to DOH because the criteria for referral
eliminate some calls. Further investigation may have determined that, while the

case involved illness or in jury, it was not pesticide-related. Table 42 shows the
disposition of WPC calls by medical outcome.

In 2004, 47 (2%) of the human exposure calls involved moderate or major health

effects.

Three percent (63) of the pesticide-rela ted calls involved intentional exposure.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 83

## Table 42. WPC Human Exposure Calls by Medical Outcome/Disposition*,

2004

Follow-up

No health effect 91

Minor health effect/outcome 171

Moderate health effect/outcome 44

Major health effect/outcome 3

Death 0

No Follow-up

Nontoxic exposure 271

Minimal toxicity expected 1,458

Potentially toxic exposure** 42

Unrelated 262

Total 2,342

* Cases coded as ‘confirmed non-exposure’ are not included. ** Cases where the caller either refuses to provide a name or contact information or there are other circumstances that do not allow follow-up.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 84

# Appendix A

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel

Pesticide Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090

List of PIRT Panel Members

Pesticide Incident Definition

Agency Roles and Responsibilities

Agency Response Time Mandates

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 85

# Pesticides - Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090

RCW 70.104.070 Pesticide incident reporting and tracking review panel -- Intent. The legislature finds that heightened concern regarding health and environmental impacts from pesticide use and misuse has resulted in an increased demand for full-scale health investigations, assessment of resource damages, and health effects information. Increased reporting, comprehensiv e unbiased investigat ion capability, and enhanced community education efforts are required to maintain this state's responsibilities to provide for public health and safety.

It is the intent of the legislature that the various state agencies responsible for pesticide regulation coordinate their activities in a timely manner to ensure adequate monitoring of pesticide use and protection of workers and the public from the effects of pesticide misuse. [1989 c 380 § 67.] Severability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942

.

RCW 70.104.080 Pesticide panel -- Generally.

(1) There is hereby created a pesticide incident reporting and tracking review panel consisting of the following members:

(a) The directors, secretaries, or designees of the departments of labor and industries, agriculture, natural resources, fish and wildlife, and ecology;

(b) The secretary of the department of health or his or her designee, who shall serve as the coordinating agency for the review panel;

(c) The chair of the department of environmental health of the University of Washington, or his or her designee;

(d) The pesticide coordinator and specialist of the cooperative extension at Washington State University or his or her designee;

(e) A representative of the Wa shington poison control center
network;

(f) A practicing toxicologist and a member of the general public, who shall each be appointed by the governor for terms of two years and may be appointed for a maximum of four terms at the discretion of the governor. The governor may remove either member prior to the expiration of his or her term of appointment for cause. Upon the death, resignat ion, or removal for cause of a member of the review panel, the governor shall fill such vacancy, within thirty days of its creation, for the remainder of the term in the manner herein prescribed for appointment to the review panel.

(2) The review panel shall be chaired by the secretary of the department of health, or the secretary's designee. The members of the review panel shall meet at least monthly at a time and place specified by the chair, or at the call of a majority of the review panel.

[1994 c 264 § 41; 1991 c 3 § 363; 1989 c 380 § 68.]

Severability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942

. RCW 70.104.090 Pesticide panel -- Responsibilities. The responsibilities of the review panel shall include, but not be

limited to:

(1) Establishing guidelines for centralizing the receipt of information relating to actual or alleged health and environmental incidents involving pesticides;

(2) Reviewing and making recommendations for procedures for investigation of pesticide incidents, which shall be implemented by the appropriate agency unless a written statement providing the reasons for not adopting the recommendations is provided to the review panel;

(3) Monitoring the time periods required for response to reports of pesticide incidents by the departments of agriculture,
health, and labor and industries;

(4) At the request of the chair or any panel member, reviewing pesticide incidents of unusual complexity or those
that cannot be resolved;

(5) Identifying inadequacies in state and/or federal law that result in insufficient protection of public health and safety, with specific attention to advising the appropriate agencies on the adequacy of pesticide reentry intervals established by the federal environmental protection agency and registered pesticide labels to protect the health and safety of farmworkers. The panel shall establish a priority list for reviewing reentry intervals, which considers the following criteria:

(a) Whether the pesticide is being widely used in laborintensive agriculture in Washington;

(b) Whether another state has established a reentry interval for the pesticide that is longer than the existing federal reentry
interval;

(c) The toxicity category of the pesticide under federal law; (d) Whether the pesticide has been identified by a federal or state agency or through a scientific review as presenting a risk of cancer, birth defects, genetic damage, neurological effects, blood disorders, sterility, m enstrual dysfunction, organ damage, or other chronic or subchronic effects; and

(e) Whether reports or complaints of ill effects from the pesticide have been filed following worker entry into fields to which the pesticide has been applied; and

(6) Reviewing and approving an annual report prepared by the department of health to the governor, agency heads, and members of the legislature, with the same available to the public. The report shall include, at a minimum:

(a) A summary of the year's activities; (b) A synopsis of the cases reviewed; (c) A separate descriptive listing of each case in which adverse health or environmental effects due to pesticides were found to occur;

(d) A tabulation of the data from each case; (e) An assessment of the effects of pesticide exposure in the workplace;

(f) The identification of trends, issues, and needs; and (g) Any recommendations for improved pesticide use practices.

[1991 c 3 § 364; 1989 c 380 § 69.] Effective date -- 1989 c 380 §§ 69, 71-73: "Sections 69 and 71 through 73 of this act shall take effect on January 1, 1990." [1989 c 380 § 90.] Severability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942

.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 87

# Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT)

Panel Representatives

Department of Health........................................................ Maryanne Guichard, Chair

Department of Health........................................................Lucy Harter, Coordinator

Department of Agri culture ................................................Ann Wick

Department of Ecology ..................................................... Maria Victoria Peeler

Department of Fish and Wildlife .......................................Vacant

Department of Health ........................................................Dorothy Tibbetts

Department of Labor and Indu stries .................................Gabrie lle Toutonghi

Department of Natural Re sources ....................................Ka ren Ripley

General Public ...................................................................Alice C. Larson, PhD

Practicing Toxicologist ......................................................St even Gilbert, PhD, DABT

University of Washington ..................................................Matthew Keif er, MD, MPH

Washington Poison Center ...............................................Willia m O. Robertson, MD

Washington State Universi ty.............................................Allan Fe lsot, PhD

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 88

# Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel

Pesticide Incident Definition

A pesticide incident includes:

• Documented or suspected human cases of pesticide poisoning reported by
health care providers as stated in WAC 246-100.

• Suspected pesticide poisoning of animals that may relate to human illness.

• Cases of human exposure where there is concern, but no medical evidence to
substantiate a pesticide poisoning.

• Emergencies relating to pesticides that represent an imminent and/or future
hazard to the public and/or labor force due to the toxicity of the material, the
quantities involved, or the environment in which the incident occurs.

• Documented impacts to the environment including ground, surface water or
soil contamination, crop or other resour ce damage due to the use or misuse of
pesticides.

• Violations of worker protection-related to pesticide use.

• Property loss or damage from the use or application of any pesticide.

A pesticide incident appropriate for review by the PIRT Panel includes a case or
situation where information received by Depa rtments such as Agriculture, Health, or
Labor and Industries indicates that the use of a pesticide may be related to a current
or future threat to the public health and welfare.

A pesticide incident appropriate for resolution by the PIRT Panel is any case
described above for which unresolved issues remain after agencies have conducted
investigations. Incidents concerning human health are given top priority.

Adopted April 19, 1990

Contact: Dorothy Tibbetts, Manager

Pesticide and Surveillance Section

360.236.3361

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 89

# Primary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticide Exposure

Washington State Department of Agriculture

The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is responsible for
protection of health, welfare, and the environment under authority of the Pesticide
Control Act and the Pesticide Application Act. These laws give the department the
authority to regulate the handling, transpor tation, storage, distribution, use, and
disposal of pesticides and their contai ners. WSDA administers the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the state pesticide laws. In
administering these programs, WSDA:

• adopts and administers pesticide regulations including state pesticide
registration;

• tests and certifies pe sticide applicators;

• administers continuing education requirem ents for pesticide applicators; and,

• investigates complaints of pesticide misuse or misapplication.

Washington State Department of Health

The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is responsible for carrying out
rules and regulations adopted by the State Board of Health for the purposes of
protecting and enhancing public health and welfare. This includes the determination
and documentation of health effects resulting from pesticide poisonings and
exposures, and delineation of public healt h risks. The major elements of DOH

Pesticide and Surveillance Section are set forth in RCW 70.104.030 and include:

• Conduct medical investigations of suspected human pesticide poisonings
and those animal poisonings that may relate to human illness.

• Provide technical assistance regarding health effects and risks of pesticides
to health care providers, other agencies, and individuals.

• Provide community information regarding health effects of pesticide

exposure.

• Secure and provide for analysis of environmental samples or human and
animal tissues to determine the nature and cause of any suspect case of
pesticide poisoning.

• Establish, chair, and staff the multi-a gency Pesticide Incident Reporting and
Tracking Review Panel (PIRT).

• Establish pesticide illnes s/exposure reporting mech anisms to be used by
health care providers.

• Develop a program of medical education for physicians and other health care
providers regarding pesticide poisonings.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 90

## Washington State Department of Ecology

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is responsible for protection
of public health and the environment, particularly under these jurisdictions: Chapter
90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control; Chapter 70.105D RCW, Hazardous
Management Act; Chapter 70.105D RCW, Model Toxics Control; and, Chapter 70.94
RCW, Washington Clean Air Act. The following elements apply to pesticide incidents.

• Protect wetlands, shorelands, and water including control and prevention of
pollution from pesticide activities.

• Implement an aquatic pesticide application permit system.

• Administer a regulatory and education program directed at proper
management and disposal of pesticide wastes.

• Investigate and enforce remediation of incidents involving spills or
environmental contamination by pesticides.

• Provide educational and technical assistance to make voluntary compliance

with environmental laws easier.

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I), the Division of
Industrial Safety and Health, administers t he Washington Industrial Safety and Health
Act of 1973, Chapter 49.17 RCW. L&I has primary responsibility for ensuring that
employers provide safe and healthful working conditions for every worker in
Washington State at a level which is at leas t as effective as the Federal Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970. In administering Chapter 49.17 RCW, L&I:

• conducts safety and health workplace inspections in agriculture and industry;

• promulgates workplace safety and health standards;

• investigates employee complaints;

• provides employers information and consultation; and,

• conducts training and education programs.

L&I also focuses on hazardous chemicals th rough administration of the Worker Right
to Know Law, Chapter 49.70 RCW, and administers the Workers Compensation
Program, Title 51 RCW, through the Di vision of Industrial Insurance.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources

The Washington State Department of Natu ral Resources administers the Forest
Practices Rules and Regulations, WAC 222. Section 38 of WAC 222 pertains to
forest chemicals including pes ticides and fertilizers. These regulations are written to
protect timber resources, fish, and wildlife fr om the misuse or misapplication of forest
chemicals. The elements of the program that apply to pesticides involve issuing
permits for pesticide applications in fore sts and monitoring permit restrictions.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 91

# Agency Response Time Mandates

Washington State Department of Agriculture

WAC 16-228-233 directs the Washington Stat e Department of Agriculture to respond
to complaints involving humans or animals immediately. All other complaint
investigations must be initiated within 48 hours.

Washington State Department of Health

WAC 246-100-217 directs the Washington St ate Department of Health (DOH) to
respond to incidents within time perio ds based on severity. In the event of a
pesticide-related hospital admission, death, or a threat to public health, DOH must
respond within 24 hours. For all other cases, DOH must respond within 48 hours after

notification.

Washington State Labor and Industries

The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) response times are
mandated in the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act operations manual.
Serious complaints require response within 30 days; all others within 120 days. The
goal of the L&I Consultation and Compliance Services Division is to respond to
serious complaints within 15 days; all ot hers within 30 days. Response is defined as
a site visit, not a telephone call.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 92

# Appendix B

Case and Severity Classifications

National Public Surveillance Syst em Relationship Classifications

NIOSH Severity Classifications

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 93

# National Public Surveillance Syst em Relationship Classifications

Definite Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or env ironmental evidence corroborates
exposure, 2. Two or more new post-exposur e abnormal signs and/or test/laboratory
findings are reported by a licensed health care provider, and 3. The finding
documented under health effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal
relationship between the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the findings
are consistent with an exposure-health effect relationship based upon the known
toxicology of the putative agent

.

Probable Case : 1. Laboratory clinical or envir onmental evidence corroborates
exposure, 2. Two or more post-exposu re abnormal symptoms reported but do not

meet the threshold of a definite, and 3. The finding documented under health effects
are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between the exposure
and health effects is plausible and/orthe findings are consistent with an exposurehealth effect relationship based upon t he known toxicology of the putative agent.

Or

1. Evidence of exposure based solely upon wri tten or verbal report by case, witness,
application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a trained
profession or other evidence suggesting t hat an exposure occurred, 2. Two or more
new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or test/laboratory findings are reported by a
licensed health care provider, and 3. The finding documented under health effects are
characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between the exposure
and health effects is plausible and/orthe findings are consistent with an exposurehealth effect relationship based upon the known toxicology of the putative agent.

Possible Case: 1. Evidence of exposure based sole ly upon written or verbal report by
case, witness, application, observation of re sidue and/or contamination by other than a
trained profession or other evidence suggesti ng that an exposure occurred, 2. Two or
more post-exposure abnormal symptoms reported but do not meet the threshold of a
definite, and 3. The finding documented under health effects are characteristic for the
pesticide and the temporal relationship between the exposure and health effects is
plausible and/or the findings are consistent with an exposure-health effect.

Suspicious Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or environ mental evidence corroborates

exposure, or evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case,
witness, application, observation of re sidue and/or contamination by other than a
trained profession or other evidence suggesti ng that an exposure occurred, 2. Two or
more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/ or test/laboratory findings are reported
by a licensed health care provider or two or more post-exposure abnormal symptoms
reported but do not meet the threshold of a DEFINITE, and 3. Insufficient toxicological
information is available to determine causal the relationship between the exposure and

health effects.

Unlikely Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or env ironmental evidence corroborates

exposure, or evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case,
witness, application, observation of re sidue and/or contamination by other than a

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 95

## trained profession or other evidence suggesti ng that an exposure occurred, 2. Two or
more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/ or test/laboratory findings are reported
by a licensed health care provider or two or more post-exposure abnormal symptoms
reported but do not meet the threshold of a DEFINITE, and 3. Evidence of exposurehealth effect relationship is not present d ue to no observed health or effect, a temporal
relationship does not exist, or the constellation of health effects are not consistent
based upon the known toxicolo gy of the putative agent.

Insufficient Information: Insufficient data in the documentation of the pesticide

exposure or insufficient data in the documentat ion of adverse health effects.

Not a Case: Strong evidence that no pe sticide exposure occurred or insufficient
toxicological information is available to determine causal relationship between
exposure and health effects.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 96Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 97 

# NIOSH Severity Classifications

Severity Index for Use in State-based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide-related
Illness and Injury Descriptions of Severity Categories

04 Mild illness or injur y : Lo w severity. Often involves skin, eye or upper
respiratory irritation. May also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically
the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost time (less than 3
days) from work or normal activities.

03 Moderate illness or injur y : This category often involves systemic

manifestatio n s. Usually treatment is provided. The individual is able to return to normal
functioning without any residual disability. Us ually, less time is lost from work or
normal activities (3-5 days) compared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual
impairment is present although effects may be persistent.

02 Sever illness or injury : Consid ere d life threate ning and typically requires
treatment. Commonly involves hospitalization to prevent death. Signs and symptoms
include, bur are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal failure and/or respiratory
depression. The individual sustains substantia l loss of time (more than 5 days) from
regular work. Can include assignment to limited or light work duties or normal activities
if not employed. This level may include t he need for continued health care after the
exposure, prolonged time off of work, and limitations or modification of work or normal
activities. The individual may sustain permanent functional impairment.

01 Death : Includes a human fatality resulting from exposures to one or more pesticides.Signs and Symptoms by Severity CategoryTABLE: Signs and symptoms by severity category(Modeled after Persson et. al.,1998 and includes SPIDER database elements)ORGAN SYSTEMSEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODEFATALHIGHMODERATELOW1234DeathSevere or Life-threatening SignsPronounced or Prolonged Signs orSymptomsMild, transient, and spontaneouslyresolving symptomsGastrointestinalSystem•Massive hemorrhage/perforation of gut•••••••••Diarrhea (G14,sign only)Melena (GI7)Vomiting (GI6,sign only)Abdominal pain, cramping (GI1)Anorexia (GI2)Constipation (GI3)Diarrhea (GI4,symptom)Nausea (GI5)Vomiting (GI6,symptom)Respiratory System•••••••••••Cyanosis (RESP 2) + Respiratory depression(RESP 7)Pulmonary edema (RESP6)Respiratory arrestAbnormal pulmonary x-rayPleuritic chest pain/pain on deepbreathing (RESP8)Respiratory depression (RESP7)Wheezing (RESP9)Dyspnea, shortness of breath (RESP4,sign only)Cough (RESP1)Upper respiratory pain, irritation(RESP3)Dyspnea, shortness of breath(RESP4,symptom)Nervous System•••••••••••••••••Coma (NS3)Paralysis, generalized (NS10)Seizure (NS5,sign only)Confusion (NS4)Hallucinations (NS99 Other)Miosis with blurred vision (NS14)Seizure (NS5,symptom)Ataxia (NS1,sign only)Slurred speech (NS12)Syncope (fainting) (NS17)Peripheral neuropathy (NS11,sign only)Hyperactivity (NS2)Headache (NS7)Profuse sweating (NS13)Dizziness (NS15)Ataxia (NS1,symptom)Peripheral neuropathy (NS11,symptom)Pesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report98ORGAN SYSTEMSEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODEFATALHIGHMODERATELOW1 234DeathSevere or Life-threatening SignsPronounced or Prolonged Signs orSymptomsMild, transient, and spontaneouslyresolving symptomsCardiovascularSystem•••••••••Bradycardia/ heart rate <40 for adults, < 60infants and children, <80 neonates (CV1)Tachycardia/ heart rate>180 for adults, >190infants/children, >200 in neonates (CV4)Cardiac arrest (CV2)Bradycardia / heart rate 40-50 in adults,60-80 in infants/children, 80-90 inneonates (CV1)Tachycardia / heart rate=140-180 inadults, 160-190 infants/children, 160-200in neonates (CV4)Chest Pain (CV7) + Hyperventilation,Tachypnea (RESP5)Conduction disturbance (CV3)Hypertension (CV6)Hypotension (CV5)Metabolism••••Acid Base disturbance (pH< 7.15 or >7.7)Acid Base disturbance (pH = 7.15-7.24 or7.60-7.69)Elevated anion gap (MISC4)Fever (MISC1)Renal System••••••Anuria (GU2)Renal failureHematuria (GU3)Oliguria (GU2)Proteinuria (GU4)Polyuria (GU1)Muscular system••••••Muscle rigidity (NS9) + elevated urinarymyoglobin + elevated creatinineFasciculations (NS6)Muscle rigidity (NS9)Muscle weakness (NS8,sign only)Muscle weakness (NS8,symptom)Muscle pain (NS16)Local effects on skin•••••••Burns, second degree (involving >50% of bodysurface area)Burns, third degree (involving >2% of bodysurface area)Bullae (DERM1)Burns, second degree (involving <50% ofbody surface area)Burns, third degree (involving <2% of bodysurface area)Skin Edema/Swelling, Erythema,Rash, Irritation/Pain, Pruritis(DERM3 - 7)Hives/UrticariaLocal effects on eye•••••••Corneal ulcer/perforationCorneal abrasion (EYE3)Ocular burn (EYE2)Lacrimation (EYE4)Mydriasis (EYE6)Miosis (EYE1)Ocular pain/irritation/inflammation(diagnosis of conjunctivitis) (EYE5)Pesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report99Pesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual ReportTEMSEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODEusly100ORGAN SYSFATALHIGHMODERATELOW1 234DeathSevere or Life-threatening SignsPronounced or Prolonged Signs orSymptomsMild, transient, and spontaneoresolving symptomsOther effects••Fatigue (MISC5)Malaise (MISC6)

# Appendix C

Agency Data Summaries

Washington State Department of Agriculture

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program

Washington State Department of Health

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, WISHA

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 101

# Agency Data Summary

Washington State Depart ment of Agriculture

Agriculture Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 103WSDA 2004 Case DataBentonPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnlicensed3/3/2004Same Day2YesNon AgHerbicidependimethalinDOH, DOENOCweeds/studentsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004School employee applied to sidewalks/parking lot at high school prior to arrival of students. At least two sent to doctor, students sent home for day. DOE/runoff prevention response. / No contactproven, possible illness from vapor. Not licensed,no notification, landscape sign incomplete.GroundChelanPesticide ApplicationDrift to vehiclesPrivateApplicator3/13/2004Same Day2NoAgInsecticideInsecticideInsecticideKaolinsulfuroilNoneNOCpears/carsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Car drifted on while passing orchard. Had to turn on windshield wipers. Washed car as they were not sure what the substance was. / Residue observed across road way and in right of way onopposite side of road. Verbal warning given to applicator previously for same type of incident.GroundChelanPesticide ApplicationDrift to propertyPrivateApplicator3/22/2004Same Day2No air blastAgInsecticideInsecticideInsecticidekaolinendosulfanchlorpyrifosNoneNAIorchard/yardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Saw white powder on 20 x 20 area on far end of property. Daughterrides bike in area. / Applicator took numerous precautions toavoid drift (monitored, nozzle covers, buffer). Area affected small,minimal product.GroundOkanoganNon-pesticideStoragePrivateApplicatorfall 2003Same Day1No noneAgInsecticideoilNoneNAIstorageOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Pesticides left out in open near their property since last fall./ Thirty gallon oil drum found plus a few drops of adjuvant ina gallon jug. No violations. Encouraged applicator to move products tobetter storage. This was done.NAOkanoganNon-pesticideDrift to treesNA6/25/1905One Day0No noneNon AgNANADOT, USFSNAItreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Trees being killed by pesticides. / No pesticides applied in area. Probable cause from deicer used on road.NAPage 1 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataChelanPesticide ApplicationSpillPrivateApplicator4/4/2004Same Day2No mix/loadAgInsecticideKaolinDOEAdvisory Lettermix load spillOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004DOE employee reported pesticide product on ground. Did not see anycontainment. Applicator exceeded limit for non-permanent mix/load site. Must move or add containment. Working withapplicators to use BMPs and also possible Kaolin exemption for rule development.SpillChelanPesticide ApplicationDrift to vehicles/housePrivateApplicator4/8/2005Same Day2No airblast & handAgInsecticideformetanate hydrochlorideDOH, DOENOCorchard/carOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Applicator drifted second time on vehicles and house. / Confirmed. Person said she was ill from previous application but no complaint was filed.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureDealer Manager4/2/2004Same Day3NoAgFumigantmetam sodiumDOH, DOENAIspillOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Two irrigation district employees saw tanker truck dumping chemicals on canal bank. Walked area and smelled strong odor and hadskin irritations. / Verified. Soil removed and disked into field.GroundDouglasPesticide ApplicationDrift to propertyPrivateApplicator4/13/2004Same Day2No prob airblastAgInsecticidesulfurNoneNOCapples/property, carOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Pickup and residence were drifted on from application to a neighboring orchard. / Samples collected were positive for sulfur. Neighbors communicating to resolve and prevent further incidents.GroundChelanPesticide ApplicationDrift to waterPrivateApplicator4/26/2004Same Day1No prob airblastAgInsecticideInsecticidethiamethoxanabamectinNoneNAIpears/waterOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Caller said applicator drifting to creek on two occasions. / Products being used within buffer requirements both times. No violations. Records in order. Applicator taking care of boom spraydirection, spraying only one side.GroundPage 2 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to applesPrivateApplicatorSpring 2004Same Day1NoAgHerbicide2,4-DNoneNOCwheat/applesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Neighbor sprayed wheat. Damage to south 100 feet of orchard block. / Verified. Grower requested delay to see if trees would recover. Did not call or submit info.UnknownOkanoganPesticide ApplicationWater contaminationCommercial5/7/20043 days1No handgun, broadcast Non AgHerbicideherbicidediglicolyamine2,4-DNoneAdvisory Letterweeds/waterOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Complainant saw pesticide symptoms in weeds and thought someone had sprayed directly in water. / Weeds along seasonal stream showed symptoms. No lab detects.GroundChelanPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsCommercial5/18/2004Same Day1No power groundNon AgUnknownunknownNoneNAItrees/yardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to neighbor's trees drifted onto complainant's yardplants. / Spray company contacted complainant and agreed futureapplications would be by injection. Complaint dropped.GroundDouglasPesticide ApplicationDrift to vehicles/peoplePrivateApplicator6/1/2004Same Day2No air blastAgInsecticideAzinphos methylNoneNOIapples/carsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Two airblast applicators drifting over road and passing cars. / Verified. Drifted onperson monitoring traffic and towards pond. Residue in all samples. Poor monitoring procedures.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift on plantsPrivateApplicator5/7/2004Same Day4NoAgherbicideMCPANoneNOCpeas/grapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Damage to grapes after neighboring peas sprayed. / Verified, damages over $1000 but no follow up was received from the grower on damages.UnknownPage 3 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataOkanoganPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsPrivateApplicator5/18/2004Same Day4No boom sprayerAgHerbicide2,4-DNoneNOIhay/organic pearsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift to organic orchard from triticale application. / Verified. Wind and temperature inversions.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsCommercialJun-043 days4NoAgherbiciderimsulfuronNoneNOC/NOIpotatoes/seed alfalfaOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Damage to alfalfa from neighbor's application to potatoes. / Verified. Also a second application to onions drifted to potatoes.Grower wanted to assess separately for damages.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to treesPrivateApplicatorJun-04Same Day3No groundAgHerbicideglyphosateF&WNOCcorn/willowsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Willows and other vegetationalong drain showing symptoms of herbicide exposure. Application toglyphosate-resistant corn movedthrough drainage to willows on public land.GroundGrantReferredHuman ExposurePrivateApplicatorJun-04Same Day3No residueAgreferredreferredL&I Referredapples/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Developed rash on neck and arms after thinning apples covered inwhite dust. Swelling in arms. / Started investigation before noting it was an employer/employee case. Referred to L&I.UnknownGrantPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnlicensed6/5/2004Same Day3No hand sprayerNon AgHerbicide2,4-DDOH, DOENOCweeds/person, plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Plants dying after neighbor sprayed. Can smell fumes and is chemically sensitive. / Homeowner applied product over rate, dumped excess material on tree, container placed in garbage, drifted tosensitive plants. Detects in all samples.GroundPage 4 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataChelanPesticide ApplicationDog sickCommercial7/27/2004Same Day4No handNon AgInsecticidebifenthrinEPANOIinsects/dogOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Dog went into seizures after application of pesticide pellets.Applicator gave no warning about keeping dog away. / Material not distributed evenly, material in dog's water dish. No warning to keepdog away from area.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnlicensed7/24/2004Same Day3No hand sprayerNon AgInsecticidetoxaphenemethoxyclorDOHNOIflies/humanOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Employer sprayed for flies. Sought medical treatment for eye problem. / Stock spray was used around deck for flies while peopleon break. Felt mist, eye irritation, lips tingling. Product not labeledfor residential use, drift on persons. Old cancelled product.GroundOkanoganNon-pesticideHuman ExposureCommercial8/9/2004Same Day0NoAgNonenoneDOHNAIapples/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Aerial applicator sprayed orchards around office. Spray got intoventilation system and triggered asthma attack. / The only applicator in area was spraying wax for sunburn. Not a pesticide.NAKingPesticide ApplicationPostingCommercial8/12/2004Same Day1yes hand sprayerNon AgInsecticidepermethrinNoneNAIwaspsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004No notification at child care facility thathad just been sprayed for wasps. / One nesthad emergency treatment by commercial company. Daycare operator did not post site. Discussed need forposting.GroundSnohomishPesticide ApplicationPostingUnlicensed8/18/2004Same Day1No hand sprayerNon AgHerbicideglyphosateNoneNAIweeds/postingOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application was made to a high school with noposting signs. / School said there wasposting at entrance. Will do follow-up inspection.GroundPage 5 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataChelanPesticide ApplicationLicenseUnlicensed5/7/200419 days1No hand sprayerNon AgunknownunknownNoneNOCweedsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Person observed with containers, sprayers and flags on lawn caretrailer. Not licensed as commercial applicator. / Verified. Warning given. Still not licensed.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to treesCommercial8/27/2004Same Day2No ground sprayerAgHerbicideglyphosateF&W, DOENAIcorn/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to neighbor's land drifted to willow trees along wind break and damaged them. / Glyphosate residue detected in willows. Applicator will replace if needed. Complaint withdrawn.GroundKingPesticide ApplicationPostingPublic Operator11/17/20044 days1No hand sprayerNon AgHerbicidesmsclDSHSNOCweedsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#C028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Parks Department not complying with posting regulations at daycares and summer school activities. / Complex program. Working on getting daycares into compliance.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationPostingCommercial3/23/2004Same Day1No groundAgFumigantmetam-sodiumNoneNAIfieldOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Applicator not posting fields treated with metam-sodium. / Recent changes to label do not require posting.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to propertyUnknown6/15/2004Same Day1No groundNon AgHerbicidemsclNoneNAIunknownOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to control weeds drifting to neighboring property anddamaging plants. / Miscellaneous pesticide residues found ingarden plants but no source could be determined.GroundPage 6 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataAdamsPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropPrivateApplicator7/3/2004Same Day2NoAgHerbicideparaquatNoneNOCweeds/cornOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift from aerial application to corn from onions. / Verified, also over spray on water.AirGrantPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureCommercial7/17/2004Same Day1NoAgInsecticidemethamidophoscoppersulfurDOHNOCpotatoes/peopleOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Aerial application to potatoes drifted toproperty and caused breathing problems andeye irritation as well as contaminating orchard and garden. / Findings did not support allegations. NOC onrecords and did not renew license.AirGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to treesUnlicensed6/15/2004Same Day1No groundAgHerbicidemsclNoneNAIweeds/orchardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Neighbor sprayed weed killer on vacant lot next to apple trees and damaged them. / Conflicting stories, and residues of four pesticides were detected in samples. Major symptoms were due tofire blight.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsCommercial7/21/2004Same Day3NoAgHerbicidediquatWSUNOIpotatoes/orchardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift from potato field sprayed with diquat. Leaves falling off fruit trees and spots on garden and ornamentals. / Verified, off label use, no records submitted.AirGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsPublic Operator7/31/20045 days4No groundAgHerbicideherbicide2,4-DdicambaDOE, IrrigNOIditch/potatoesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Potatoes next to irrigation district showing phenoxy symptoms. Bean fields in areawith symptoms also. / Verified, no ROW on POlicenseGroundPage 7 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataGrantPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsPublic Operator7/12/20043 days1No groundAgHerbicide2,4-DNoneNAIditch/beansOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Beans next to irrigation district showing phenoxy symptoms. / Nosource of residue found. Symptoms were mainly mite damage. Dropped complaint.GroundGrantPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureCommercial5/1/2004Same Day3No chemigationAgFumigantmetam sodiumDOH, DOENOIpreplant/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Person walking through surface runoff got blister on foot. / Verified.Hole in boot. Surface runoff from metam sodium application confirmed, label violation, missing some of backflow preventiondevices, operator unlicensed.FumigationWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationLicenseCommercial10/22/2004Same Day2No chemigationAgFumigantmetam sodiumNoneNOCpreplantOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#G010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Unlicensed applicators injectingmetam-sodium without supervision of commercial applicator. / Verified (same case as 9G)FumigationSpokaneNon-pesticideFaulty WDOCommercial4/17/2002Same Day2No NANon AgNANANoneNOCWDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Incomplete pest inspection. Later found termite infestation and damage. / Could not determine if termites were present at timeof inspection. Some earth to wood contacted noted, some missed.Report incomplete.NASpokanePesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnlicensed6/7/2003Same Day1Yes foggerNon AgInsecticidetralomethrinDOHNAIinsects/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Insect foggers used to treat apartment building suspected in death of ten-month old child. Incident occurred 10 months prior tocomplaint. / DOH requested investigation to see if any violations.Apartment owner vacated building, treated at labeled rate with foggers. Residents entered building several hours later and ventilated and then reentered several more hours later and cleaned.Child laid on blanket on floor of livingroom as it was vacuumed, found dead in morning. Medical examiner listed as Sudden Infant Death Syndrom. No violations of pesticide regs.GroundPage 8 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataGarfieldNon-pesticideSaleDealer Managerspring 2004One Day1No NA (repackaging) Non AgHerbicideglyphosateEPA NOC packagingOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Improper distribution of glyphosate into containers by dealer./ Repacking without proper agreements. Transferred from shuttlesto containers.NAWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsNAspring 2004One Day1No unknownAgunknownunknownNoneNAIgrapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Herbicide drift to vineyard. / Damage to grapes could not be linked to any application.UnknownSpokanePesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsUnknown4/1/2004Same Day2No unknownagunknownunknownWSUNAItomatoesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Herbicide drift to 300 tomato plants. / Plants had residue of MCPA and glyphosate. No source found.UnknownSpokanePesticide ApplicationDrift to propertyCommercial5/19/2004Same Day2No truckNon AgHerbicide2,4-DNoneNOCweeds/ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Herbicide drift to fruit trees and blackberry vines in yard. Also horse pasture and horse. / Residue found off site.GroundSpokaneNon-pesticideMisuseNA5/1/2004Same Day0No noneNon AgNANANoneNAIornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Claims damage to ornamentals by someone sneaking to her propertyat night and spraying herbicide on plants. / No evidence to support claim.NAPage 9 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataSpokaneNon-pesticideAnimal deathNAspring 04Same Day0No noneNon AgNANAVetNAIcatsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Claims cats poisoned by neighbor with rodenticides. / No evidence to support complaint. Stomach contents had barely detectablestrychnine.NAWhitmanPesticide ApplicationLicensePrivateApplicator6/2/2004One Day1No ground (weeds) Non AgHerbicidemsclNone NOC weedsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Pesticide applications by non-licensed individuals. / Applied topublic property by WSU employee without PO license. Had PA license.GroundSpokaneNon-pesticideDrift to plantsCommercialSpring 04Same Day0No NANon AgNANAWSUNAIornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Commercial herbicide application adjacent to arborvitae damaged 125plants. / No evidence application injured plants. Probablycultural/bacterial disease.NASpokanePesticide ApplicationHuman ExposurePublic Operator6/8/2004Same Day2No ground (mosquito) Non AgInsecticidemalathionDOH NOC mosquitoes/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Human exposure to mosquito application done by the city. / Exposure not confirmed. Product found off target, used contrary to label, not licensed for mosquito control.GroundLincolnPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsCommercialMar-04Same Day1No airAgHerbicidesulfosufuronNoneNAIgrain/plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Damage to ornamental plants fromaerial application to adjoining grain field. / Noindication of drift. Symptoms consistent with disease, insects and climatic conditions.AirPage 10 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataAdamsPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsPrivateApplicatorApr-04Same Day1No ground rigAgHerbicide2,4-DNoneNAIwheat/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Damaged ornamentals from adjacent ground-rig application. / No residue, natural growth pattern.GroundSpokanePesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsPrivateApplicator4/22/2004Same Day1No groundAgHerbicidebromoxinildicambaNoneNAIwheat/lentilsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift from wheat to lentils. / No damage symptoms, no residue. Complaint withdrawn.GroundSpokanePesticide ApplicationMisuseUnlicensed5/1/2004Same Day1No unknownNon AgHerbicideunknownNoneNAIweeds/notificationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Making herbicide applications to mobile home park without posting, notification, license. Child has asthma and concerned aboutexposure. / No requirement for posting. Will work with mobilehome manager about notification. Sent pesticide sensitive registration forms. No determination that applications were made.GroundStevensNon-pesticideDistributionDealer Manager6/8/2004Same Day1No NANon AgNANANoneWarning Letterimproper distributionOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Distribution of pesticides and fertilizers not registered in state. / Feed grade copper sulfate rebagged in small package as convenience. Sold as "fertilizer". Warning letter to grower forrecommending off label use of a copper sulfate fungicide.NASpokanePesticide ApplicationDirect applicationNA6/15/2004Same Day1No groundNon AgHerbicideglyphosateNoneNAIlawnOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Has large dead spot in lawn and two dead ornamental plants. Has had commercial pesticide applications and a mowing service. / Glyphosate residue found and caused injury. Source could notbe determined.GroundPage 11 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataLincolnNon-pesticideDrift to plantsNA6/1/2004Same Day1No NANon AgHerbicideunknownNoneNAIplantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift from application to weeds at commercial grain elevator damaging trees and shrubs in yard. / No evidence of drift. Possibly cultural problem, low soil fertility.GroundLincolnPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsCommercial6/16/2004Same Day4No airAgHerbicideHerbicidetrhifensulfuronrimsulfuronNoneNOCpotatoes/peasOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift to 135 acres of peas being grown for seed. / Verified. Damage $47K.LincolnPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsCommercial6/1/2004Same Day3No airAgHerbicideunknownNoneNAIwheat/garlicOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Aerial herbicide drift to garlic. / Garlic field killed by aerial application. Grower reached settlement with applicator. Withdrew complaint.AdamsunknownDrift to cropsUnknownSpring 2004Same Day1No unknownAgHerbicideunknownNoneNAIROW/wheatOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged ROW drift of herbicide to winter wheat. / Damage to wheat seen along road but no cause determined. No residues detected.GroundWhitmanunknownDrift to cropsUnknownsummer 2004Four days1No unknownAgunknownunknownNoneNAIgrapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged drift to organic vegetables. / Damage to grape vines could not be linked to any pesticide applications.UnknownPage 12 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataAdamsunknownDrift to cropsUnknown6/26/1905Same Day1No unknownAgunknownunknownNoneNAIwheat/peasOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged drift to seed peas from application to wheat. / No evidence of drift. Multiple applications made in area.UnknownSpokaneNADrift to treesNASpring 2004Same Day0No unknownNon AgHerbicideclopyralidNoneNAItreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Herbicide injury to trees around nursing home. / Symptoms appear to be root uptake, not drift. Clopyralid detected in leaf samples, No source determined.UnknownAdamsPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsPublic Operator6/28/2004Same Day1No groundAgHerbicide2,4-DNoneAdvisory Letterirrigation/potatoesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged drift of herbicides onto potato field. / Verified. Probably came from irrigation district application. No complaint, just wants employees advised.GroundSpokanePesticide ApplicationDrift to treesPublic Operator4/15/2004Same Day3No groundNon AgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosatepicloramNoneNOCROW/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004ROW application by country damaged locust trees on his property. / Glyphosate residue found, no source determined. Off label use of picloram (near trees).GroundSpokanePesticide ApplicationDrift to treesCommercial9/1/2004Same Day2No ground AgHerbicideglyphosateNone NOC wheat/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged pesticide drift during windy conditions. / Verified. Residue in trees.GroundPage 13 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataSpokanePesticide ApplicationDirect applicationCommercial7/16/2003Same Day1No groundNon AgHerbicideglyphosateNoneNAIweeds/lilacOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application made by commerciallawn care company damaged lilacs growing along edgeof treatment area. / No symptoms, occurred in 2003, no complaint until 2004GroundSpokanePesticide ApplicationDirect applicationUnlicensed6/15/2004Same Day1No groundNon AgHerbicidediuronbromacilNoneNAIdriveway/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S029SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to driveway made by friend damaged trees. / Complaint withdrawn.GroundSpokaneNon-pesticideDisposalCommercial12/9/2004Same Day0No NANon AgNANADOENOCdisposalOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#S030SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Improper container and equipment rinsing. / Rinsing of muddy fertilizer truck on pad. No violations. Check of records showed improper application of herbicide tohay, cited on inspection report.NAKingPesticide ApplicationMisuseCommercial1/4/2004Same Day2No fumigation (commercial) Non AgFumigantmethyl bromideNone NOC trailerOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges commercial applicator is fumigating truck trailers ina manner that endangers the public. / Verified. Applicator fumigating trailer in traffic area contrary to label.GroundKingPesticide ApplicationAnimal deathCommercial1/23/2004Same Day2No ground (residential) Non AgInsecticidecarbarylNone NAI crane fly/catOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Commercial application on neighbors lawn and small area of her lawn killed earthworms. Her cat died the next day. / No violations noted. No cause on cat death found.GroundPage 14 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataSkagitNon-pesticideFaulty SPI, licenseCommercialConsultant4/11/2004Same Day2No NA (WDO)Non AgNANANoneNOIWDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty Structural Pest inspection Report and unlicensed inspector. / Failed to report beetles and rot. Did not diagram. Was licensed.NAKingNon-pesticideLicense fraudCommercial2/3/2004Same Day2No NA (license)Non AgNANANoneNOIlicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Operator provided a document to prove he had taken and passed the license exam. Document was falsified. / Verified. Also falsebillings for applications and falsified application records. Appliedwithout a license.NAKingNon-pesticideRecords, licenseCommercial2/11/2004Same Day2No NA (records)Non AgNANANoneNOCrecords, licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Business inspection showed failure to complete and retain records application records and WDO reports. Power apparatus was notlicensed.NAKingNon-pesticideRecords, licenseCommercial2/11/2004Same Day2No NA (records)Non AgNANANoneNOCrecordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Business inspection showed failure to make or keep WDO reports,provide records on approved forms, and failure to keep completeand accurate records.NAKitsapNAFaulty SPI and reportSPI6/16/2003Same Day2No NA (report)Non AgNANANoneNOCfaulty WDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty structural pest inspection and report. / Verified. Failed to report rot and conducive conditions, did not diagram.NAPage 15 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataSkagitNAReportSPI4/11/2002Five days2No NA (records)Non AgNANANoneNOCno reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Did not provide WDO report as requested for previous complaint.NAKingNAReportSPI2/27/2004Same Day2No NA (records)Non AgNANANoneNOCno reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Did not provide report as requested for previous complaint.NAGrays HarborNon-pesticideMisuseUnlicensedyear 2003Same Day0No NA (residential)Non AgNANANoneNAIlawnOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Said neighbor using a pesticide to kill his yard. / Neighbor-neighbor dispute. Alleged application occurred a year ago. Could not determine cause of lawn death. Did not seem to be caused bypesticides.NAKingPesticide ApplicationDirect applicationCommercial3/22/2004Same Day1No ground (commercial) Non AgInsecticidefipronilNone NAI insects/houseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004PCO treated the wrong house. / Mix-up on house numbers. No evidence who had given the wrong number.GroundClarkNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed2/25/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOClicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004No longer employed with company, therefore insurance is invalid,and company has no license. Advertising as inspector without license. / VerifiedNAPage 16 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataKingNon-pesticideFaulty SPI and licenseUnlicensed12/17/2003Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOCWDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI and not licensed. / Verified. Failed to report rot, debris, earth to wood. Not properly licensed.NAPierceNon-pesticideFaulty SPI and reportSPI5/12/2003Same Day0No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNAIWDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI and report. / Not verified. Inspection was thorough and accurate. No violations.NAKitsapNon-pesticideFaulty SPI and reportSPI12/10/2003Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOIWDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to report rot, insects and debris. No diagram.NAKingNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed3/8/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOCWDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Advertising as a SPI without a license. / Verified.NAKingNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed3/8/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOCWDOOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Advertising as a SPI without a license. / Verified.NAPage 17 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataThurstonNon-pesticideNo backflow deviceUnlicensed2/26/2004Same Day2No no (lumberyard) Non AgNANANone NOC lumber millOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Follow up inspection at lumber mill from previous secondary containment inspection. Did not havebackflow device, did not inspect systems, no spill response plan.NASnohomishNon-pesticideNo backflow deviceUnlicensed2/27/2004Same Day2No no (lumberyard) Non AgNANANone NOC lumber millOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Follow up inspection at lumber mill from previous secondary containment inspection. Did not havebackflow device, did not inspect systems, no spill response plan.NAPierceNon-pesticideNo backflow deviceUnlicensed2/27/2004Same Day2No no (lumberyard) Non AgNANANone NOC lumber millOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Follow up inspection at lumber mill from previous secondary containment inspection. Did not havebackflow device, did not inspect systems, no spill response plan.NAThurstonPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsUnlicensed4/21/2004Same Day2No ground (trees)AgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosateoxyfluorfenNoneNOCChristmas trees/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to Christmas trees damaged ornamental hedge. / No evidence application damaged trees. Applicator used product contrary to label, did not keep records, failed to train pesticidehandler, did not post handler information.GroundKingPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsUnlicensed3/15/2004Same Day2No ground (residential) Non AgHerbicideglyphosateNone NOC lawn/bambooOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to neighbor's lawn drifted tograss and bamboo. / Verified. Damage minor.GroundPage 18 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataGrays HarborPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureCommercial4/29/2004Same Day2Yes ground (comm/apts) Non AgInsecticidecyfluthrinDOH NOC insects/childOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to apartment left residue on railing. Father got wet hand from railing andpicked up child. Taken to health center,worried about exposure. No symptoms. / Possible mist on rail buttreatment was crack and crevice. PPE used, no posting required. Noevidence on complaint. NOC on records and not taking precautions to keep children from area until dry.GroundClarkNon-pesticideMisuseResidential3/15/2004Same Day0No no (residential)Non AgHerbicideunknownNoneNAIplantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Said neighbor sprayed her plants with herbicide. / No evidence to support complaint.GroundSnohomishNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed4/7/2004Same Day2No no (license)Non AgNANANoneNOClicense, recordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Dealer inspection - no dealer endorsement on license, no currentdealer manager, improper records for sales, offered for sale product not registered as pesticide (as a repellent).NAThurstonPesticide ApplicationLicense/DriftUnlicensed4/27/2004Same Day1No groundNon AgInsecticidecarbarylNoneNOClicense, driftOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to trees for tent caterpillars drifted across road. / Verified. Also company and employee werenot licensed.GroundPiercePesticide ApplicationIneffective productUnlicensed3/27/20046 days1No ground (residential) Non AgHerbicide2,4-DNone NAI productOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Company allegedly sold customer a product that did not work/ Purchased 2,4-D product. Wanted all vegetation gone. Should have purchased glyphosate.GroundPage 19 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataSnohomishNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed4/8/2004Same Day2No no (license)Non AgNANANoneNOClicense, recordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Dealer inspection - no dealer manager present, no complete sales records, improper storage of items for sale and offered non-registered pesticides.NAThurstonNon-pesticideDirect applicationUnlicensedunknownSame Day0No no (residential)Non AgNANANoneNAItreeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T029SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Neighbor damaged tree. / New asphalt probably cut off water to tree. Ground was compacted to lay asphalt. Also frost and insect damage.NAKingPesticide ApplicationNotificationCommercial5/10/2004Same Day1No ground (ROW)Non AgInsecticidecyfluthrinNoneNOCnotificationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T030SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004On pesticide sensitive list. Was not notified. No health symptoms./ Commercial company spraying for tent caterpillars. Miscommunication on who was to notify people on list.GroundClarkNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed4/14/2004Same Day2No none (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOClicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T031SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Unlicensed structural pest inspector. / Verified. Also no insurance and no inspection number on report.NASnohomishNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed4/8/2004Same Day2No no (dealer)Non AgNANANoneNOCsaleOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T032SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Dealer inspection - dealer manager's license not needed. No proper sales records, offered for sale non registered pesticides, labels not intact, poor housekeeping, open containers, residue onoutside of containers.NAPage 20 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataSnohomishNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed4/9/2004Same Day2No no (dealer)Non AgNANANoneNOClicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T033SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Dealer inspection - dealer manager's license not current, no dealer endorsement, no proper sales records, offered for sale nonregistered pesticides.NAKingNon-pesticideFaulty SPI & reportSPI1/24/2003Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOCinspectionOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T034SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI and report. / Verified, failed to note insects, rot and earth to wood. No diagrams.NAGrays HarborNon-pesticideFaulty SPI & reportSPI12/31/2002Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOCinspectionOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T035SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI and report . / Verified. Failed to notebeetles, rot and earth to wood contact. No diagrams.NAJeffersonNon-pesticideMisuseNA2/1/2004One Day0No noNon AgNANANoneNAItree dyingOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T036SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges neighbor is killing his tree because it blocked the view./ No evidence of pesticides. Suspect tree's decline is due tostress.NAPierceNon-pesticideFaulty SPI & reportSPI4/16/2004Same Day0No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNAIinspectionOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T037SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged faulty SPI and report. / Unsubstantiated. Inspection was complete and accurate.NAPage 21 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataGrays HarborPesticide ApplicationMisuseCommercial6/2/2004Same Day4No yes (commercial) Non AgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosatesulfometuron methylDOT, DOENOIweeds/waterOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T038SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Commercial applicator applying to DOT lands without permission. Applying to vegetation in standing water in a wetland. / Verified Damage to DOT vegetation $11,933. Did not have properendorsements, did not keep complete and accurate records.GroundSnohomishPesticide ApplicationDirect applicationCommercial5/13/2004One Day1No ground (comm/lawn) Non AgInsecticideInsecticidepyrethrinthiophanate methylWSUNAIornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T039SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Commercial spray company damaged her vegetation. / No evidencespray damaged vegetation. Glyphosate trace found but could not determine source.GroundKingNon-pesticideLicenseCommercial12/4/2003Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOClicense, inspectionOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T040SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Unlicensed SPI, no control number, advertising without valid license. / Verified. Also insurance problems.NAKingNon-pesticideRecordsCommercial6/7/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNANANoneNOCrecordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T041SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Did not provide records to WSDA as requested from previous WDO investigation.NAKingNon-pesticideMisuseUnlicensed6/8/2004Same Day0No no (residential)Non AgNANANoneNAItreeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T042SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges that tree was sprayed without permission of owner. / Elmtree was dying from Dutch Elm Disease. No pesticides involved.NAPage 22 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataKingNon-pesticideLicenseUnlicensed6/28/2004Same Day1No no (license)Non AgNANANoneNOClicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T043SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Advertising as SPI without a valid license. / VerifiedNAKingNon-pesticideMisuseNA6/1/2004Same Day0NoNon AgNANANoneNAIplantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T044SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004County park has some trees and shrubs dying and thinks it may be caused by herbicide applied by a neighbor. / No pesticides involved. Poor cultural practices.NAKitsapPesticide ApplicationMisuseCommercial6/3/20046 days2NoNon AgRodenticideRodenticidedifethilonebromobiphenylNoneNOCrodent baitOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T045SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Rodenticide applied around home in improper manner. / Verified. Not in secure bait box. Records inadequate.GroundSkagitPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsPrivateApplicator6/3/2004Same Day1NoAgHerbicideclomazoneOrganic ProgramNAIcucumbers/organic potatoesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T046SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift to organic crop from neighbor's application. / No residue, no symptoms.GroundKingPesticide ApplicationMisuse/LicenseUnlicensed7/12/2004One Day2NoNon AgHerbicide2,4-DtriclopyrNoneNOCblackberriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T047SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges that an unlicensed applicator sprayed some brush on his property. / Verified. Homeowner Association asked him to spray. The lot was thought to be vacant.GroundPage 23 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataPierceNon-pesticideRecords/StorageCommercial7/1/2004Same Day1NoNon AgNANANoneNOCrecords, storageOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T048SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Inspection revealed faulty application records and storage. / Verified.NAThurstonPesticide ApplicationApparatus plateCommercial7/19/2004Same Day1No yes (aquatic)Non AgHerbicidetriclopyrDOENOCaquatic weedsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T049SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to water. Applicator failed to display apparatus plate on boat. / Application made according to label, all other regs followed. On one occasion, applicator did not have apparatus plate onsmall boat.GroundThurstonNADistributionUnlicensed7/19/2004Same Day1No yes (aquatic)Non AgHerbicidetriclopyrNoneNOCmisbranded, licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T050SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Sticker with establishment number obscured EPA registration number (misbranded). Also needed a Commercial Consultant license and Dealer License.GroundGrays HarborPesticide ApplicationWater ContaminationPrivateApplicator7/8/2004Same Day2No yes (forestry)AgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosatesulfometuron methylDNRNOCwater contaminationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T051SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Herbicide application to forest lands went into water. / Verified. Also incomplete records.AirIslandPesticide ApplicationLabeled ContainersPublic Operator7/20/2004Same Day1No yes (aquatic)Non AgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosateimazapyrNoneNOCunlabeled containersOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T052SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Did not label containers of pesticide mixture used for Spartinacontrol application and reused pesticide containers to transport pesticide mixture.GroundPage 24 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataIslandPesticide ApplicationLabeled ContainersPublic Operator7/20/2004Same Day1No yes (aquatic)Non AgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosateimazapyrNoneNOCunlabeled containersOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T053SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Did not label containers of pesticide mixture with appropriatecontents and cautions, used for Spartina control application.GroundIslandPesticide ApplicationLabeled ContainersPublic Operator7/20/2004Same Day1No yes (aquatic)Non AgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosateimazapyrNoneNOCunlabeled containersOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T054SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Did not label containers of pesticide mixture used for Spartina control application.GroundKingPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnlicensed8/9/2004One Day1No ground (commercial) Non AgFungicidecopper napth.DOH NOC roof/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T055SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Neighbor ill after roof treatment application./ Odor problem only. Applicator unlicensed.GroundKingPesticide ApplicationMisuseUnlicensed4/15/2004Same Day1NoNon AgHerbicidedicambaNoneNAIhedgeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T056SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Hedge died. Alleges neighbor killed it with herbicide. / Dicamba residue found in foliage but no evidence to show source.GroundKingPesticide ApplicationMisuseUnlicensed4/15/20046 days1NoNon AgHerbicideHerbicide2,4-DdicambaNoneNAIplantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T057SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Said neighboring business killed vegetation on his property. / Residue of 2,4-d and dicamba found. Roofing company denied usingany herbicides. No source determined.GroundPage 25 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataKingPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnlicensed6/14/2004Same Day1NoNon AgInsecticidepermethrinNoneNOCantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T058SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application in a closet for ants caused health problems. / Permethrin used by unlicensed contractor to control ants. No evidence of misuse, odor or residue. Possible odor of septic. Did not haverequired Commercial Applicator license for that application.GroundPierceNon-pesticideDirect applicationCommercial6/15/2004One Day0No no (residential)Non AgnonenoneNoneNAItreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T059SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges commercial applicator killed her willow trees. / Treesgirdled from use of string trimmer. No pesticides involved.noKingPesticide ApplicationNotificationCommercial7/22/2004Same Day1No yes (residential) Non AgNANANone NOC lawn/notificationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T060SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges commercial applicator did not notify her about application next to residence, is on the pesticide sensitive register. /Verified.GroundGrays HarborNAFaulty SPI & reportSPI6/16/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNAnaNoneNOCSPIOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T061SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI and report. / Failed to report rot fungus, termites, beetles and earth to wood contact. Did not diagram.NAPierceNon-Pesticide ApplicationMisuseNA8/22/2004Same Day0No no (residential)Non AgNAnaNoneNAItreeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T062SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges neighbors poisoned her maple tree. / Holes in tree due to woodpecker. Mold caused by aphids. No pesticide use.NAPage 26 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataLewisNAHuman ExposureNA10/20/2004Same Day0NoNon AgNAnaNoneNAIpersonOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T063SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Strong odor of pesticides entering house and making her and her mother sick. / Odor was from gasoline leaking from a can on the porch. Not a pesticide problem.NAClarkNon-Pesticide ApplicationFaulty SPI & reportSPI6/8/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNAnaNoneNOCSPIOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T064SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI & report. / Failed to report ants, termites, fungus, debris and moisture.NAKingPesticide ApplicationPlant damageCommercial10/7/2005Same Day1NoNon AgunknownunknownNoneNAIplantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T065SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Commercial applicator treating neighbor's property damaged her property. Numerous allegations of harm to plants, shoes, batteries, car hoses etc. / No evidence to support claim.GroundPierceNACat deathNA10/27/2005One Day0NoNon AgnonenoneNoneNAIrodents/catOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T066SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges rodent bait distributed in a manner that exposed domesticpets. Cat died from rodent bait. / Not substantiated. Any rodent bait placed was over two years ago by previous renters.Building deteriorating and full of garbage. No bait seen. Cause of cat's death undetermined.NAPierceNALicense, containersUnlicensed10/11/2004Same Day1NoNon AgNAnaNoneNOCdistribution, licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T067SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Ag Use inspection found creosote oil without establishment number, and is not a registered product in WA. Did not have pesticide dealer license.NAPage 27 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataClarkNon-Pesticide ApplicationFaulty pest inspectionSPI4/6/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNAnaNoneNOCfaulty SPIOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T068SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty Structural Pest inspectionand Report. / Failed to report fungus, earth to wood contact, debris .NAClallamNon-Pesticide ApplicationLicenseUnlicensed11/1/2001Same Day2No no (WDO)Non AgNAnaNoneNOCSPI LicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T069SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Unlicensed Structural Pest inspector. Not licensed to do WDO inspections, did not put inspection control number on reports. Failed to produce proof of insurance.NAClallamNAReportUnlicensed11/29/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNAnaNoneNOCreportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T070SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Did not provide WDO report for inspection done on case 69T.NASnohomishNon-Pesticide ApplicationFaulty SPI & reportSPI1/22/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNAnaNoneNOCreportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T071SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Faulty SPI & WDO report. / Failed to report fungus, ants, earthto wood contact and moisture. Did not provide license number and inspection control number on report.NAKingPesticide ApplicationMisuseCommercial10/20/2004Same Day1No yes (residential) Non AgInsecticidecyfluthrinNone NAI blueberriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T072SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Sprayed her blueberries without permissionduring commercial application at neighbors. / Property line dispute. Was given OK tospray by other neighbor. Lawn under berries was sprayed, notblueberries.GroundPage 28 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataKitsapNARecordsUnlicensed10/14/2004Same Day1NoNon AgunknownunknownNoneNOCapartmentsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T073SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Failed to provide application records to WSDA on request. / Company did not provide evidence of license during condominium bidprocess. Complaint to WSDA. Did not provide applicationrecords to WSDA.GroundOut of StateNALicenseUnlicensed4/1/2004Same Day1NoNon AgNAnaNoneNOClicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T074SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Inspection of a wood preservative producer. Found adjuvant notregistered in state. Company distributing is not licensed as WAdealer.NAThurstonPesticide ApplicationMisuseUnlicensed9/9/2004Same Day1No yes (restaurant) Non AgInsecticidepermethrinDOH Verbal Warning restaurantOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T075SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Employee used fogger labeled for homes and apartments in restaurant. / Verified. No reports of any illness or problems (DOH referral). Warned not to use this product in commercial setting.foggerClallamNAReportSPI10/30/2003Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNAnaNoneNOCreportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T076SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Failed to provide WDO report to WSDA upon request. / Verified.NAPierceNARegistration, licenseUnlicensed11/1/2004Same Day0NoNon AgNAnaEPANAIdistribution, licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T077SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Inspection at wood treating plant found unregistered adjuvant.Distributor was not licensed. / Distributor sold Boric Acid andhad no knowledge of its use as pesticide/adjuvant.NAPage 29 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataSnohomishNALicenseUnlicensed5/31/2000Same Day2NoNon AgNAnaNoneNOCSPIOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T078SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Unlicensed structural pest inspector. / Inspectiondone in 2000 without proper license. Now has license.NAPierceNALicenseUnlicensed11/30/2004Same Day2No no (SPI)Non AgNAnaNoneNOISPIOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T079SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Unlicensed structural pest inspector. / Not licensed to doWDO inspections. Failed to report conditions. No insurance.NAWhatcomNAMisuse of CCA woodNA12/3/2004Same Day1NoNon AgNAnaEPANAItreated woodOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#T080SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Use of CCA treated wood in construction site. / Wood used was pre 2004 CCA treated. No violation.NAWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationLicenseUnlicensed2/22/2004Same Day1NoAgHerbicidesulfosulfuronNoneNOClicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Aerial application of a pesticide made by an unlicensed person working for an application business whose owner had not renewedthe commercial applicator license. Records incomplete.AirBentonPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnlicensed3/14/2004Same Day3NoAgInsecticideInsecticideoilchlorpyrifosDOHNOIcherries/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Neighbor sprayed cherries and drifted to person, possibly water.Felt mist, became nauseous and skin burned. / Residue detectedoutside orchard but not on complainant's clothing or person.Person had showered.GroundPage 30 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataBentonPesticide ApplicationDrift - school playgroundPrivateApplicator3/17/2004Same Day2NoAgInsecticideInsecticideInsecticideChlorpyrifosEsfenvalerateOilNoneNOCcherries/schoolOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Orchard spray drifted to school playground.No reports of anyone exposed at this time. / Spraying in high wind. One grass sample tested positive. Other samples negative.GroundYakimaPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposurePrivateApplicator3/20/2004Same Day3NoAgInsecticidechlorpyrifosDOHNOIcherries/personsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Neighbor sprayed orchard, and complainant had guest who felt ill after being exposed to drift. / Residues detected, also records incomplete and infractor made recommendations contrary tolabel. Label violation.GroundYakimaPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsPrivateApplicator3/19/2004Same Day2NoAgInsecticideInsecticideInsecticideesfenvaleratesulfuroilNoneNOCpears/alfalfa, pastureOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to pears drifted across alfalfa and pasture. / Residue found 100 feet into other property. Wind direction and speed favored drift. Additional chemical not indicated on records was foundas residue.GroundYakimaPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposurePrivateApplicator3/22/2004Same Day3No ground sprayerAgInsecticideInsecticideInsecticidechlorpyrifosoilendosulfanDOHNOCapples/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to apples drifted on a person and property. Felt mist and burning on skin and in nose. / Verified. Also record keeping violations.GroundYakimaPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposurePrivateApplicator3/24/2004Same Day2No ground sprayerAgInsecticideInsecticidecalcium polysulfideoilNoneNOCpears/person, dogsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application of lime sulfur and oil to pears drifted on person, dogsand trailer. / No health symptoms. Shirt tested positive ofsulfur. Records incomplete.GroundPage 31 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnknown3/25/2004Same Day1No groundAgUnknownUnknownNoneNAIorchard/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to orchard drifted to neighboring business. Employeeexposed. / Employee withdrew complaint and had employer handlethe situation with the owner of orchard.GroundWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureCommercial3/29/2004Same Day2No airAgHerbicideHerbicideMCPAclodinafop-propargylDOH, FAANOCwheat/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Person exposed to aerial application to wheat while jogging. / Verified. Records deficient. Plane was an unlicensed apparatus.Not in full compliance with FAA rules.AirYakimaPesticide ApplicationDrift to propertyPrivateApplicator4/2/2004Same Day2NoAgFungicideInsecticidefenarimolchlorpyrifosNoneNOCapples/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Spraying in wind and drifted on house and lawn. / Verified.GroundBentonPesticide ApplicationDrift to propertyPrivateApplicator4/8/2004Same Day1No groundAgInsecticidesulfurNoneNAIapples/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged neighbor across road was spraying apples in wind and drifting to property. / No sulfur was detected off target. No violations noted.GroundYakimaPesticide ApplicationDrift to propertyCommercial4/12/2004Same Day2No groundNon AgInsecticidedimethoateNoneNOCflies/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to residence. Application to eaves dropped on picnic table, chairs, barbeque, hot tub and shoes. / Verified. Residue found. Did not have PCO Certification.GroundPage 32 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataBentonPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsUnknown4/1/2004Same Day2No unknownAgHerbicidesulfonylureaNoneNAIcherriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Cherries have sulfonylurea symptoms. / Cherries appeared to have been exposed to sulfonylurea two to three weeks earlier. Unknown sourceUnknownYakimaNALicenseUnlicensedyear 2004Same Day0No noneNon AgNANANoneNAINAOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Company employees reporting truck with spray tanks doing lawn care jobs. Alleges they are not licensed. No record of company inWSDA files. / Not pesticide related. Equipment used to put outfires.NABentonPesticide ApplicationBee KillPrivateApplicator4/19/2004Same Day3No groundAgFungicidetriflumizoleNoneNOCapples/beesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Claims to have smelled chemical odor, andnext evening saw their bees dying, 25 hives affected. / Residues found in dead bees.Applied to blooming plants. Product is toxic to bees for threehours. Records violations.GroundYakimaPesticide ApplicationDirect applicationUnlicensed4/23/04Same Day1No ground (ROW)Non AgUnknownUnknownNoneNAIweeds/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleges someone made an herbicide application to her property without permission. / Alleged application was on easement. No further investigation conducted.NAKittitasPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsCommercial4/29/2004Same Day2No ground spray rigAgHerbicide2,4-DNoneNOCwheat/pearsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Herbicide application to wheat drifted to pears,possibly apples. / Residue found on pears but not apples.GroundPage 33 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataFranklinPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposureUnknownMay-04Same Day1YesAgUnknownUnknownDOHNAIpotatoes/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleging that drift from application causing irritated eyes andthroats to complainant and daughter. / Probably odor from chemigation application to potatoes. Nearest application 5 miles away.Product has significant odor. No evidence of drift.UnknownBentonunknownDrift to ornamentalsUnknownMay-04Same Day2No unknownNon AgUnknownUnknownNoneNAIornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Trees and ornamentals in yard dying. Alleges it is due to drift. / Symptoms typical of phenoxy herbicides. Not due to drift butcarryover, direct application or close exposure. Owner claims nochemicals used. Can not determine source.UnknownFranklinPesticide ApplicationDrift to CropsCommercialApr-0418 days1No groundROWHerbicideUnknownNoneNAIROW/wheatOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Roadside spraying damaged wheat. / Wheat was growing in Right-of-Way. County working with growersto resolve. Complaint dropped.GroundWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsCommercialMay 15-22, 2004One day3No ground (hand sprayer) Non AgHerbicideglyphosateNone NOC property/grapevineOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Neighbor applying herbicide to weeds, drifted on grapes. / Verified. Drift or direct spray. Repeat offense.GroundBentonunknownDrift to cropsUnknownSpring 2004Same Day2No unknownAgHerbicideUnknownNoneNAIorchardsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Fruit and leaves have spots. / Symptomsconsistent with aerial drift or volatilization of herbicides. Unknown source.UnknownPage 34 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataBentonPesticide ApplicationDrift to vineyardCommercialMay-04Same Day2NoAgHerbicidephenoxyNoneNOCcorn/vineyardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Phenoxy symptoms in vineyard. / Verified, herbicide application made next to vineyard.GroundYakimaNADrift to propertyPrivateApplicator6/4/2004Same Day0No noneAgNANANoneNAIapples/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to apples drifted on his property. / Applied potassium salt. Not a pesticide.NAGrantPesticide ApplicationContaminated productUnknownMay-04Same Day3NoROWNANoneNAIweeds/grassOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Believes misbranded or contaminated productdamaged grass on ROW. / Not verified.NABentonunknownDrift to cropsUnknown6/11/20043 days3No unknownAgUnknownUnknownNoneNAIasparagusOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Asparagus on packing line had red marks and speckling. / Symptomsof carfentrazone-ethyl herbicide. Source unknown. Culling loss about $10,000.UnknownFranklinPesticide ApplicationDrift to plantsPublic Operator5/20/2004Same Day3No ground sprayer (ditch) ROWHerbicideHerbicideHerbicidedicamba2,4-DglyphosateIrrigation DistrictNOCcanal bank/plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application made to ditch bank and across road drifted to nearbyhome and damaged trees and ornamentals. / Verified. Also records incomplete.GroundPage 35 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataKlickitatNon-PesticideDrift to treeNA5/25/2004Same Day0No noneROWNAnaNoneNAIROW/cherry treeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Cherry tree with brown leaves. Thought to be caused by ROW spray. / Nutrition and drainage problems, not pesticide related. Last application on ROW was 2003.NAKlickitatnoneDrift to cherriesNA6/25/2004Same Day0No noneAgNAnaNoneNAIcherry treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y029SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Yellow and brown cherry leaves. / Not pesticide related. Nutrition and drainage problems, plus the application of calcium nitrate.NAYakimaPesticide ApplicationDrift to plants, animalsCommercial6/19/2004Same Day2No helicopterAgInsecticidemalathionNoneNOIpears, dogs, goatsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y030SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application made to cherries drifted on pears, goats and dogs. / Verified. Also records incomplete, sale to unlicensed person,off label use . NOCs also issued.AirBentonPesticide ApplicationDrift to vehiclePrivateApplicator6/23/2004Same Day2NoAgInsecticideInsecticideImidaclopridoilNoneNOCcherries/carOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y031SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drifted on car from application to cherry orchard. Windows rolled up and no human exposure claimed. / Verified. Spots on vehicle and residue detected.GroundBentonPesticide ApplicationMisusePrivateApplicator6/29/2004Same Day2NoAgHerbicideHerbicideMCPABromoxynilNoneNOCmisuseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y032SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Spraying phenoxy herbicides in temperatures above 85F. / Verified.UnknownPage 36 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataYakimaPesticide ApplicationDirect applicationPublic Operator7/16/2004Two days2NoNon AgHerbicideglyphosateNoneNOCROW/mailboxOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y033SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Alleged the county sprayed mail and mailbox. Concerned about exposure. / Verified, residue detected.GroundWalla WallaNon-PesticideFaulty WDOSPI11/19/2001Same Day0NoNon AgNANANoneNAIWDO inspectionOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y034SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Homeowner allegedly missed WDOs during inspection 3 years ago, resulting in bad inspection report now. Is selling house. / Complainant moved and did not file forms as requested so casewas terminated.NABentonPesticide ApplicationMisuseUnknown7/26/2004Same Day2NoAgInsecticidefenpropathrinFDA/OregonNOIcurrentsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y035SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004FDA found fenpropathrin on currents in OR. No tolerance for currents. Grower said WSU recommended. / Section 18 not requested as producer thought full registration was completed. Currentswere placed in freezer pending tolerance level set by FDA.UnknownGrantPesticide ApplicationBee KillCommercial7/24/2004Same Day4No airAgInsecticideInsecticidemethamidophospropargiteNoneNOIpotatoes/beesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y036SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Leaf cutter bee kill. / Verified. Applied to alfalfa and drifted to leaf cutter bees pollinatingfield. Loss of $50K in alfalfaseed, $10K bees.AirGrantPesticide ApplicationDirect to treeCommercial7/29/2004Same Day3No groundNon AgHerbicidemsclNoneNOClawn/treeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y037SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Pine or Fir tree dying on lawn. Suspect Commercial application made to lawn. / At least two companies made applications and the homeowner also applied pesticides. A severe insectinfestation was discovered in the tree. Recordkeeping and other violations were found.GroundPage 37 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataYakimaPesticide ApplicationHuman ExposurePrivateApplicator8/6/2004Same Day2NoAgInsecticideInsecticideInsecticideAzinphos methylB.t.ImidaclopridDOHNOCorchard/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y038SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Pesticide application made to orchard drifted onto property. Hefelt sick and had headache. / Residues found from ingredientson orchard. Records also deficient.UnknownWalla WallaUnknownMisuseUnknown8/19/2004Same Day2NoNon AgHerbicidemetribuzinSheriffNAItreeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y039SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Sheriff's office requested analysis of unknown substance placedaround tree. Tree blocks viewfrom neighbor. / Substance identified as an herbicide. Cleaned up site and turned case over tosheriff's office.GroundBentonPesticide ApplicationDrift to fishPublic OperatorCheck 8/17/2003Same Day2NoNon AgInsecticidepyrethrinsNoneNOCmosquitoes/fishOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y040SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Mosquito application drifted to fish in holding tanks and killed 13 Koi about 24" long. / Water and fish disposed of, so unableto sample.UnknownColumbiaPesticide ApplicationDrift to treesCommercial8/4/2004Same Day2NoAgHerbicideHerbicideglyphosate2,4-DNoneNAIfallow/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y041SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Aerial application to summer fallow drifted to trees and damaged./ Foliage samples tested positive. Applicator and homeowner came to agreement and homeowner withdrew complaint.AirBentonPesticide ApplicationAnimal exposureCommercial8/20/2004Same Day2No ground (comm/lawn) Non AgInsecticidebifenthrinNone NOC lawn/catOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y042SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Application to yard made cat ill. Vet saidsymptoms typical of pesticide poisoning. /No evidence to prove cat sick due to pesticides. Licensing and label violations.GroundPage 38 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataYakimaPesticide ApplicationDrift to cropsUnknown9/11/2004Same Day1NoAgUnknownUnknownYakama NationReferredapples/organic cherriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y043SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift to organic cherry orchard fromapple orchard spray. / Case referred to Yakama Nation at request of EPA.GroundFranklinPesticide ApplicationDirect applicationCommercial9/21/2004Same Day2No chemigationAgInsecticidedithiocarbamateNoneNOCpotatoes/carOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y044SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004End gun oversprayed road and struck truck. Unattended fumigant application. Sprayed into pond. No human exposure claimed. / Verified. No damage. No exposure.GroundWalla WallaNAMisuseUnknown9/29/2004Same Day0No NANon AgNAnaSheriffNAItreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y045SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Herbicide damage to cherry and poplar trees. Believed to be related to earlier case 39Y from 2004. Sheriff's office asked for help in analysis of soil. / No residue detected in soil.NAYakimaNon-PesticideFaulty WDOSPI10/1/2004Same Day2No NANon AgNAnaNoneNOCSPIOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y046SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004WDO inspection did not identify pests. / Verified. Evidence of termite damage. Incomplete records.NAFranklinPesticide ApplicationAnimal exposurePrivateApplicator10/9/2004Same Day1No chemigationAgFumigantvapamNoneNAIempty fieldOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y047SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Circle next to her property was chemigating and she was worried about her horse. / No evidence any material went off target. Person on site while chemigating.ChemigationPage 39 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionWSDA 2004 Case DataWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationDrift on treesCommercialin 2004Same Day2No groundNon AgHerbicidesmsclWSUNOCtreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y048SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Trees at Port have herbicide symptoms. Nearby grapes and other plants do not. / Foliage tested positive for herbicides used bycommercial applicator near trees.GroundYakimaNAMisuseUnknown5/1/2004Same Day1No groundNon AgHerbicideboronchlorineNoneNAItreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y049SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Claims neighbor put white substance along trees to kill them. / Dieback seen in trees. May be due to excessive irrigation. Found Boron and Chlorine in white substance.GroundSnohomishPesticide ApplicationMisuseUnlicensed2003&200423 days2No fumigationAgFumigantformic acidNoneNOCmites/beesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y050SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Used formic acid, unregistered pesticide, on bee colonies for mite control in 2003 and 2004. Sold to second person. / Verified.GroundColumbiaNon-PesticideDisposalUnknown11/9/2004Same Day3NoNon AgunknownunknownNoneNOIsoil/human exposureOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y051SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Two county employees complained of headaches after starting to clear out culvert area. Nearby land owner alleged to have burn pit and dumped chemicals. / Farmer and employee burnedplastic containers. Samples positive for all pesticides reportedly used by farmer in 2004.NAWalla WallaPesticide ApplicationDrift on carCommercial12/12/2004Same Day2No airAgHerbicidesulfosulfuronNoneNOIwheat/carOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDate:Response timeCase#Y052SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2004Drift on car from aerial applicationto winter wheat. / Verified. Pesticide application recordswere incomplete.AirPage 40 of 40NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideSeptember 30, 2005NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest InspectionEcology Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 145 

# Agency Data Summary

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill ProgramWashington State Departmentof Ecology, Spill ProgramDepartment of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeAdamsOthello,5412196/3/04,6/3/04SoilPesticide,90 gallonsFarm/agricultureAccident –otherSoilcontaminationTelephoneTechnicalassistanceAn orchard applicatorwas killed when herolled his spray vehicle.The contents of thespray tank, azinphosmethyl, leaked to theground.BentonHanford,5393953/2/04,3/2/04SoilHerbicide,50 gallonsCommercialUnknownSoilcontaminationNo follow-uprequiredProsser,5395613/3/04,3/3/04RoadwayPavedHerbicide,15 gallonsCommercialHumanfactor-unknownSoilcontaminationFieldresponse-InvestigationApplicator over-sprayedonto school parking lot.Raining hard. Sorbentsplaced to prevent runoffinto Yakima River. 15students evacuated as aprecaution.Prosser,5397493/14/04,3/22/04Surfacewater-fresh,SpringPesticideFarm/agricultureHumanfactorimproperprocedureWaterpollutionReferralCaller reported thatspray from neighbor’sorchard drifted to creek.WSDA investigated.Vegetation and clothingsamples were negativefor chlorpyrifos.Ecology Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report147Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySource Cause Impact Action NarrativeChelanWenatchee,5426264/13/04,6/21/04SoilPesticideCommercialUnknownSoilcontaminationTCP-DeterminationRecommended that sitereceive Site HazardAssessment. Soilsamples showed lead orarsenic above MTCACleanup Levels. The siteis covered with buildingsor asphalt.Chelan,54681112/28/04,12/28/04SoilPesticideCommercialHumanfactor- otherSoilcontaminationTCP-VoluntarycomplianceReport submittedthrough TCP VoluntaryCleanup Program forreview.ClarkBattleground,5399203/29/04,3/29/04Storm drainpipePesticide,2 gallonsMotor vehicleAccident –otherWaterpollutionTelephoneCaller reported wetpavement that smelledlike pesticide or dieselnear ditches thatdischarge into MillCreek. The productevaporated beforereaching creek.DouglasEastWenatchee,5401774/7/04,4/7/04BuildingstructurePesticide,3 drumsDomesticUnknownPotentialpollution-releaseTelephoneCaller referred to WSDAfor disposal options.FerryInchelium,5414796/14/04,6/14/04Surfacewater-freshHerbicideCommercialHumanfactorintentional-No follow-uprequiredEcology Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report148Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySource Cause Impact Action NarrativeGrantMoses Lake,5395013/9/04,3/9/04RoadwayPavedHerbicide,200 gallonsIndustrial facilityLeakingdrum-container-Telephone-TechnicalassistanceLasso herbicide spilledto asphalt and soil. Soilwill be removed andfarmed.Grays HarborMoclips,5405144/30/04,4/30/04AirPesticideCommercialImproperprocedureHumanNo follow-uprequiredAberdeen,5413475/8/04,6/9/04RoadwayPavedInsecticide,20 gallonsCommercialAccident-trafficSoilcontaminationTelephonePest Control truckinvolved in accident andspilled Temp WPPowder to roadway. Noclean-up required asproduct diluted by rain.KingKent,5384471/16/04,1/16/04OtherPesticideIllegal dump siteDumpingHumanTelephoneSolid contents ofabandoned tankanalyzed. Testsindicated boron,chlorinated pesticide, orhalogenated organic.PierceEatonville,54418010/20/04,10/20/04SoilHerbicidePublicagencyDumpingSoilcontaminationNo follow-uprequiredSnohomishLynnwood,5402184/10/04,4/10/04OtherwetlandHerbicide,3 gallonsCommercialUnknownPotentialpollution-releaseTelephoneMultiple jugs of liquidmoss killer spilled insideretail building and ranoutside onto parkingarea. Contractors hiredto clean up spill.Ecology Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report149Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySource Cause Impact Action NarrativeLake Roesiger,5403404/18/04,4/18/04Surfacewater-fresh,LakeRoesigerHerbicide,1 poundUnknownHumanfactorintentionalWaterpollutionFieldresponseTechnicalassistanceHazcatted pellets foundon ground near lake.Results barely negativefor pesticide. Ecologyrecommended to healthdept that people notdrink lake water.Everett,5415066/16/04,6/16/04SoilHerbicide,180 gallonsEquipmentfailureEquipmentfailureSoilcontaminationTelephoneCrew spraying roadsidewhen hose came offtank. Contaminated soildug up and spreadalong the intended road.Lake Stevens,5420067/7/04,7/8/04SoilHerbicide,100 gallonsEquipmentfailureEquipmentfailureSoilcontaminationTelephoneMarysville,5455018/18/04,12/27/04SoilPesticideOtherOtherUnknownRequestedinformationSpokaneSpokane,5401084/7/04,4/7/04AirHerbicideBurn - otherHumanfactorimproperprocedureAir pollutionNo follow-uprequiredSpokane,5409095/19/04,5/19/04SoilHerbicideCommercialHumanfactorintentionalAir pollutionNo follow-uprequiredSpokane,5436319/10/04,9/10/04SoilPesticide-HumanfactorintentionalNaturalresourcesdamageNo follow-uprequiredOlympia,5423767/23/04,7/23/04SoilHerbicideDomesticHumanfactorintentionalPotentialpollutionreleaseNo follow-uprequiredEcology Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report150Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySource Cause Impact Action NarrativeOlympia,5432409/1/04SoilPesticideCommercialHumanfactorintentionalSoilcontaminationTCP-Nofurther actionDeveloper required to dolevel 1 assessment ofsite (former tree farm)prior to clearing andgrading.WhatcomEverson,5397083/18/04Storm waterretentionpond, SwiftCreekPesticideFoodmanufacturerImproperprocedureUnknownNo follow-uprequiredFerndale,5409055/19/04Surfacewater- fresh,Agate LakeHerbicideOtherUnknownWaterpollutionTelephoneCommunication betweenLummi Tribe andEcology concerningpossible herbicidespraying on tribal land.Bellingham,5410435/26/04,5/26/04Surfacewater-fresh,AndersonCreekHerbicideDomesticHumanfactor- otherNoneFieldResponse-InvestigationLand owners usedherbicide in watercourse that drained tostate salmon bearingwaters. Owners agreedto use non-chemicalvegetation control.Lynden,5411906/2/04,6/2/04Surfacewater-fresh,FishtrapCreekHerbicideOtherHumanfactor-otherPotentialpollution-releaseTelephone,Fieldresponse-InvestigationLicensed applicatorsprayed insecticide/fungicide to oak trees totreat scale. Overapplication ran intodrains flowing to creek.YakimaSunnyside,5404554/23/04SoilPesticideUnknownHumanfactorunknownUnknownTelephoneWSDA picked uppesticides and dirt anddisposed at collectionevent.Ecology Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report151Ecology Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual ReportDepartment of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004y,IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySource Cause Impact Action NarrativeYakima,5425707/22/04,7/22/04OtherPesticide,35containerOtherHumanfactorunknownHumanFieldresponseInvestigationAssisted indecontamination ofmusical instrumentscovered with a dust.Yakima,54469511/10/04SoilPesticideCommercialUnknownSoilcontaminationTCP-DeterminationReceived report fromconsulting company thatsoil samples containedarsenic, DDE and DDT.152CitERTS#

# Agency Data Summary

Washington State Depa rtment of Health

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 153

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040002 01/09/2004 A 19 y/o male was feeding cattle that had been treated topically with an antiparasitic chemical for worms. He touched the calves and noted a strong chemical smell. Shortly thereafter he developed dermal and other symptoms. He eventually sought medical care and several days later sought additional medical assistance at another hospital for persisting concerns.
Multiple (product is classified as multiple classes): Moxidectin

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040003 01/13/2004 A 24 y/o male maintenance worker treated ants on an apartment building roof with a hand pump sprayer. He wore latex gloves but removed them when it was too difficult to handle his equipment. He developed respiratory symptoms and a headache within 10 minutes. He sought m edical care and was observed to have dermal symptoms.
Unknown: Malathion (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040005 02/11/2004 A 9 y/o female thought she was spraying a room deodorant. The product was an insecticide fogger and she was sprayed in the face. She experienced respiratory, ocular and neurological symptoms. She was taken to the local ER.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040006 02/21/2004 A 56 y/o male was applying moss killer when the nozzle became plugged. He unscrewed the nozzle tip while it was under pressure and was sprayed in the face. He was not wearing eye protection. He flushed his eyes and called 911. The EMTs flushed his eyes again and he went to local ER for check up. Two days later he went to a specialist for follow-up.
Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040007 02/21/2004 A 46 y/o male was splashed in the face and eye when the container came loose from the hose-end applicator and fell to the ground. He flushed his eyes immediately and sought medical care.
Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040008 02/20/2004 A 44 y/o male dairy food worker was eating lunch when he noticed that a pesticide fogger had been set off 20-30 feet away. He began to cough, experienced gastrointestinal symptoms, and sought medical care. He was
treated, released, and returned to work.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040011 03/03/2004 An unlicensed school employee applied an herbicide using a tractor mounted boom sprayer to a school parking lot and sidewalk at 6:30 AM on a school day. Signs were not posted and there was no notification of the application. Seven students and faculty members became ill after smelling the vapors. DOH classified five of the illnesses as DPP. Students and employees were evacuated

from the school. Herbicide/algicide: Pendimethalin (ANSI)

5 Probable Severity: (5) Low/Mild

2 Insufficient Information

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 155

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040012 03/06/2004 A 36 y/o male applied a fertilizer with moss control to his lawn. He later pressure washed the product off his driveway and some spray came back into his eyes. He washed but had minor eye irritation and called 911. EMTs flushed his eyes.
Herbicide/algicide: Ferrous sulfate monohydrate

1 Possible

Severity: Low/Mild

040014 03/10/2004 A 74 y/o female sprayed herself while applying aerosol insecticide to her bedding and clothing. She awoke the next day with nausea and vomiting and was taken by her caregiver to see her health care provider. An interview was

not conducted.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Piperonyl butoxide; Allethrin,
d-; Phenothrin, D1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040015 03/13/2004 An 83 y/o male applied a moss control product with a hose end applicator. While unloosening the container it dropped from his hand splashing the contents upward. He wore eye glasses but some of the product got in his eye. He showered immediately and sought medical attention for eye irritation.
Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040017 03/17/2004 A 73 y/o male fell in a garage and pulled down a shelf of containers. He lost consciousness and was found by a broken container of product that was identified by the EMTs as a cancelled insecticide. He was taken to the ER, a CT scan was negative but he was transferred to another hospital.
Unknown: Malathion (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040018 03/15/2004 A 64 y/o female, in her yard, was drifted when her neighbor sprayed fruit trees. She felt and smelled the spray. She had respiratory and dermal symptoms. She

called WPC and later went to a walk-in-clinic.
Fungicide: Calcium polysulfide

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040019 03/20/2004 A 47 y/o female got herbicide in her eye while applying to her driveway. She was not wearing eye protection. She was treated for ocular symptoms.
Herbicide/algicide: Sodium metaborate (NaBO2); Sodium chlorate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040021 03/24/2004 A 6 y/o boy had dermal symptoms after spraying himself in the face with a flea spray. His mother washed him and then called 911 and the local fire dept. EMTs examined the boy and felt he did not need further medical attention. Symptoms resolved.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tetrachlorvinphos

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040026 03/17/2004 A 26 y/o male forklift driver was relocating bags/boxes of product. He reported being exposed to dust and shortly afterwards experienced respiratory symptoms. Two days post exposure he had symptoms; when symptoms didn't resolve by seven days post exposure his supervisor took him to a medical facility. He reported wearing all required PPE while moving the product.
Fungicide: Captan (ANSI)

1 Probable

Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 156

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040028 04/03/2004 A 57 y/o male sprayed weeds with an herbicide and later developed right eye irritation. The next day he sought medical attention and was treated.
Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; Dimethylamine 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) propionate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040029 04/01/2004 A 3 y/o boy found an aerosol insecticide while playing in his grandmother's backyard. He discharged the can into his face/eyes. His grandmother washed his face with water and called WPC. As advised she attempted to flush his eyes with milk and water, but took child to the ER because of ocular and dermal
symptoms. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Mint Oil

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040030 04/02/2004 A 63 y/o self-employed male received an ocular chemical exposure while applying to wheat seed. He was not wear ing PPE, except his regular glasses. He sought treatment for ocular symptoms to his eye.
Fungicide: Thiram; Tebuconazole Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): lindane

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040031 04/01/2004 A 45 y/o male orchard foreman developed ocular symptoms after the pressure valve on a speed sprayer broke while he was repairing the valve. He was not wearing PPE. He washed his eye and sought medical care. Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Calcium polysulfide

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040032 04/10/2004 A 66 y/o male sprayed his ornamental cherry trees to control caterpillars. A gust of wind blew the spray in his face. He wore no eye protection and label did not call for it. He had immediate ocular irritation and went to the urgent care clinic.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Malathion (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040033 04/10/2004 A 9 y/o female was taken to the ER by her mother after she accidentally drank a small amount of an herbicide that had been placed in an empty pop can. Child had gastrointestinal symptoms. She was evaluated and released the same day.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Diquat dibromide

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040034 03/23/2004 A 23 y/o male applicator reported he finished spraying and cleaned his sprayer. When he drove by another applicator who was washing his equipment the patient felt the spray coming off the other sprayer and onto his face. He flushed his eyes, but sought medical care the next day for continuing symptoms. Fungicide: Triflumizole Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Mineral oil - includes paraffin

oil from 063503 Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate,O,O1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 157

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040036 03/22/2004 A45 y/o male was pruning apples when he was drifted. He developed dermal and GI symptoms. Spray records show that an application was made that day. He sought medical care the next day. His diagnosis was allergic urticaria. The sulfur product he was exposed to does not usually cause allergic reaction. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Mineral oil - includes paraffin

oil from 063503 Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Calcium polysulfide

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040037 04/12/2004 A 46 y/o male purchased bags of granular lawn insecticide that were moist, possibly from morning dew. An hour later he felt sensitivity around his eyes and his face tingled. Five hours after initially handling the bags he sought medical

care. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Lambda-cyhalothrin

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040038 04/14/2004 A 40 y/o female purchased two pesticide products and walked to her car. She reached into the plastic bag to obtain the receipt, and came into contact with one of the products, an herbicide. She reported immediate burning sensation, went back to store and washed her hands. Shortly thereafter she applied an over the counter benadryl ointment but went to ER the next day for continuing
symptoms. Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Oxyfluorfen (ANSI)

1 Probable

Severity: Moderate

040040 04/10/2004 A 53 y/o male applied a moss control product using a backpack sprayer. After 1.5 hours he noticed a burning sensation on his back. He took off the backpack sprayer and noticed it had been leaking. He called WPC and showered. Two days later he sought medical care for continuing dermal symptoms.
Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040041 03/24/2004 A 31 y/o male applicator hit his neck and head against wires used to hold the tree branches. His positive air pressure helmet came off and he inhaled the spray he was applying.
Fungicide: Fenarimol (ANSI) Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Clofentezine (ANSI) Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate,O,O1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040042 03/23/2004 A 26 y/o male unlicensed applicator applied around an apartment complex. He was not using goggles or a respirator. He became ill, sought medical care and was diagnosed with acute anaphylaxis, angioedema and an allergic reaction. The medical staff could smell the spray on his skin.
Herbicide/algicide: Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; 2,4-D, Dimethylamine Salt; MCPP, Dimethylamine Salt

1 Possible Severity: Moderate

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 158

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040044 03/13/2004 A 35 y/o male applicator developed GI and neurological symptoms while he was spraying. He was wearing a face mask and had been fit tested. However, when he turned his head around when making turns to check the sprayer he would smell the spray.
Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate,O,OUnknown: Petroleum distillate, oils, so lvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040046 03/20/2004 A 45 y/o male farm manager/applicator developed urticaria in areas exposed while spraying. He had had similar symptoms previously.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Mineral oil - includes paraffin

oil from 063503 Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Kaolin

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040047 04/24/2004 A 39 y/o female developed ocular symptoms after applying an herbicide to dandelions. She was not wearing eye protection. Her symptoms persisted for several hours so she sought medical attention the same day. Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040048 04/24/2004 A 3 y/o male child developed dermal symptoms after being in a church yard while the grass was cut and a spot treatment for weeds was made. The child reportedly followed the applicator around the yard. Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040051 03/22/2004 A 51 y/o female complained of symptoms that she associated with a spray drift from a neighbor’s apple orchard. The complainant was in her yard and reported she could taste, smell and feel the spray. No medical care was sought. WSDA investigated.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Calcium polysulfide Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate,O,O1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040052 03/20/2004 A 75 y/o male and 67 y/o female complained of m ild illnesses after drift from an adjacent orchard application. A third person was asymptomatic and DOH was unable to interview two others that were also present. No medical care was sought. WSDA environmental residue samples were positive.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate,O,O2 Probable Severity: (2) Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 159

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040053 04/10/2004 A 33 y/o male applicator sought medical care for dermal symptoms on both sides of his neck. He had been spraying several products on apples and cherries for several days prior to developing symptoms.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Endosulfan (ANSI) Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040054 03/14/2004 A 44 y/o male was dri fted by neighbor’s application to cherries. He became ill after feeling the mist while playing with his dogs in the back yard. No medical care sought. WSDA environmental samples were negative for residues.
Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate,O,O1 Possible Severity: Moderate

040057 04/09/2004 A 33 y/o male developed ocular symptoms after applying pesticides and

fertilizers in a tank mix. He was weari ng eye protection, but when he would turn his head the spray entered through openings on side of goggles. He sought medical attention three days later.
Fungicide: Unknown formula Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040058 04/13/2004 A 46 y/o male lawn care technician pumped up a small hand-held sprayer for application. The hose was not securely attached to the tank and popped off under pressure, spraying the technician in the face and right eye. He washed the eye and sought medical attention.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040061 05/01/2004 A 43 y/o farmer/licensed applicator was injecting soil around the base of locust trees to treat aphids. He had removed his goggles. When the equipment malfunctioned, he was squirted in the eye. He flushed his eye, took a shower

and went to the ER.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Dimethoate (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040062 05/06/2004 Two millwrights working outside ( 53 y/o male and 54 y/ o female) reported symptoms after smelling strong odors from nearby ground application. Both were evaluated at workplace clinic and released. The area where they were working had also been sprayed the day before.
Herbicide/algicide: Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; Diflufenzopyr, Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, dimethylamine salt

2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040063 05/03/2004 A 48 y/o female home owner was cleaning out her pantry closet where a NoPest strip had been placed 3 days before for meal moths. She experienced respiratory and dermal symptoms and the next morning went to the ER. She sought further care from her primary physician 3 days later.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Dichlorvos

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 160

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040065 04/05/2004 A 33 y/o male applicator was splashed on the left hand while loading his sprayer. He sought medical care for dermal symptoms 10 days post exposure.
Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Calcium polysulfide, Sulfur

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040066 05/10/2004 A 38 y/o male farm worker entered an onion field to change the irrigation pipes. The area had recently been sprayed and he developed neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms. His employer took him to a health care provider and he was told he could return to work the next day.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate, O,O1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040068 04/14/2004 A 30 y/o male tree pruner developed neurological symptoms after entering a sprayed apple orchard within the 48 hour restricted entry interval. He sought

medical care.
Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Calcium polysulfide

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040069 04/23/2004 A 74 y/o male worker noticed a chemical smell within 30 minutes of entering office. A co-worker had used an aerosol pesticide. He worked at his desk for an

additional 15 minutes bef ore feeling slightly ill with neurological and respiratory symptoms. A co-worker drove him home. Later a family member took him to a

clinic for medical attention.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI); Imiprothrin

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040070 05/08/2004 A 66 y/o female and 70 y/o male developed respiratory symptoms after spraying their yard with a garden insecticide. Female's symptoms persisted and she sought medical care.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Acephate (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040071 05/14/2004 A 72 y/o old male homeowner used his bare hands to apply a pesticide paste to holes where bees were entering his log home. He mixed 5 pounds of 10% dust in water to form the paste. He also sprayed 2 cans of wasp spray on the holes. He wore no PPE. He sought medical ca re for gastrointes tinal and neurological
symptoms. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tetramethrin (ANSI);
Phenothrin, DUnknown: Carbaryl (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040072 05/12/2004 A 25 y/o male nurseryman applied a granular systemic insecticide on roses. He applied for about 1 hour, wearing gloves and dusk mask but reported having respiratory symptoms and sought medical care when symptoms did not resolve after two days.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Disulfoton

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 161

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040073 05/17/2004 A 47 y/o male resident had an eye exposure while applying an aerosol wasp spray. He irrigated his eye several times during the evening. He sought medical care the next day when the discomfort persisted. Unable to contact patient for

interview.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040074 05/12/2004 A 51 y/o male applied herbicide without any PPE and did not shower the day of the application. Beginning the next day he developed dermal symptoms on his wrists. He sought treatment four days later when symptoms did not resolve.
Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, dimethylamine salt

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040075 05/20/2004 A 57 y/o male developed neurological, ocular and respiratory symptoms after inhaling fumes while placing fumigant tablets in gopher holes. He sought

medical care at local ER.
Fumigant: Aluminum phosphide

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040076 05/15/2004 A 29 y/o female and other females were changing the sprinkler system in an apple orchard where an application was made the day before. Re-entry period was 14 days. The workers had no PPE. The employee developed neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms that resulted in her seeking care 5 days later.
Fungicide: Triflumizole Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040078 03/12/2004 A 43 y/o female teacher was on break outside when an herbicide application was taking place. She smelled the chemical and she relocated. She began coughing. When her coughing continued for about 3 hours she sought medical

care. Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Oryzalin (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040080 04/12/2004 A 35 y/o male farm worker developed symptoms after removing nozzles and washing filters in bucket of water. He was wearing borrowed rubber gloves but chemicals from nozzles hit his forearms. He sought medical treatment 8 days

later.
Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate,O,O1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040081 05/25/2004 A 65 y/o female applied granular slug bait using her hands. She wore rubber gloves. She reported breathing some of the dust and contacting her facial area while attempting to brush her hair from her face. Shortly after she reported tingling and numbness around the facial area. When the reaction continued for a couple of hours she sought medical care.
Insecticide and other: Metaldehyde; Carbaryl (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 162

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040082 05/25/2004 A 23 y/o female employee for retail business was exposed to leaking container of mole repellent when sorting returned items. She had exposure to both hands. She immediately experienced burning and irritation on her hands. Two hours later she sought medical care for relief of symptoms.
Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.):

Castor oil

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040083 05/25/2004 A 5 y/o boy had accidental eye exposure to an insect repellent while playing at neighbor's yard. After complaints of mild ocular symptoms the child was taken by his mother for medical evaluation.
Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Possible Severity: Low/Mil

040084 05/26/2004 A 22 y/o female apple thinner was exposed to spray residues at work. She and 7 co-workers were thinning and she bec ame ill. It was unknown if anyone else experienced symptoms.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Phosmet, Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040086 04/01/2004 A 57 y/o male applicator took his gloves off and scratched his ear. He then developed dermal and neurological symptoms. He sought medical care 15 days

later for malaise and weakness.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040089 05/19/2004 A 28 y/o male was thinning nectarine trees and developed dermal symptoms. The trees were sprayed 48 hours before he entered and the REI was observed. He missed 12 days of work.
Fungicide: Myclobutanil (ANSI) Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur, Calcium polysulfide

1 Probable Severity: High/Severe

040090 05/14/2004 A 23 y/o male applicator had been spraying for approximately 30 days when he became ill with numerous symptoms. He reported weari ng PPE. He sought medical care with onset of symptoms.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid, Azinphos-Methyl Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040091 05/13/2004 A 33 y/o female soils technician developed respiratory, dermal and ocular symptoms after she entered a field that was recently sprayed. She was not wearing any PPE. She sought medical care 1 day later.
Herbicide/algicide: Quizalofop-ethyl

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040093 06/01/2004 A 40 y/o female applied a granular insecticide to her lawn using a hand-held spreader. A gust of wind blew product into her eye. She was not wearing eye protection nor was it required by the label. She showered and sought medical care when irritation persisted.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 163

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040094 05/21/2004 A 36 y/o male nurseryman sprayed weeds with a back pack sprayer at his work place. Shortly after completing the application he experienced a nose bleed which he felt was related to his spraying. He did not wear any respiratory protection. One day later he sought medical care for continuing symptoms. He has a history of nose bleeds.
Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040095 04/16/2004 A 39 y/o applicator was tested numerous times and showed reduction in plasma cholinesterase values. He did not report symptoms to the attending physician. However, he mentioned having intermittent headaches to DOH employees. Spray records indicate he had sprayed a carbamate. His plasma cholinesterase kept diminishing until the end of the month even without exposure.
Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Potassium 1-naphthaleneacetate

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040096 05/15/2004 A 33 y/o male applicator developed ocular symptoms after spraying. He sought medical treatment 11 days later. He indicated he was wearing eye protection, but it was not fitted properly and a liquid could run from the forehead to the

eyes. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Acetamiprid

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040097 06/04/2004 A 34 y/o male applicator developed ocular symptoms after he was exposed to few drops of an herbicide tank mix when unplugging the spray nozzles. He sought medical treatment the same day. He was not wearing eye protection as required by the product label.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040099 06/08/2004 A 50 y/o female reported neurological and respiratory symptoms after her home was drifted upon by a nearby mosquito fogging. Her home was not part of the target area. WSDA samples from her residence taken 16 days after the application were positive for malathion. She could smell the product and sought medical treatment two days later when symptoms did not resolve.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Malathion (ANSI), Malathion (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040102 06/10/2004 A 51 y/o female picked up a container of insecticide and lost her grip, dropped the container, and contents splashed into her left eye. She experienced slight ocular symptoms and irrigated her eye. She called WPC and sought medical

treatment. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Deltamethrin

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040103 05/06/2004 A 21 y/o male applying an herbicide developed dermal symptoms. His backpack sprayer leaked from the botto m onto his buttocks. He said the back pack was defective. He sought medical care after five days due to continuing
symptoms. Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 164

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040105 05/17/2004 A 28 y/o male farm worker went to a physician and 2 weeks later to an optometrist with complaint of chemicals in his eyes. Patient had been spraying for 10 days and was properly protected. The exposure may have occurred when the wind gusted and product came in around side of goggles.
Fungicide: Triflumizole Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Spinosad (proposed common name for FactorA+FactorD) (110003+110004), Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503, Imidacloprid

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mid

040106 06/12/2004 A 41 y/o female was working in her yard and occasionally spraying for insects. Perspiration ran into her eye. She wiped her eyes with her gloved hands, probably transferring chemical to her eyes. She reported immediate burning and quickly washed out her eyes. Symptoms persisted and she sought medical

care. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Esfenvalerate; Prallethrin

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040107 06/11/2004 An adult male was around a moss control product and "got a small round piece in his eye." He rinsed his eyes for 10 minutes. His eyes were irritated and burning so his supervisor called WPC. He was advised to seek medical attention by WPC because of inability to open eye. Unable to verify medical treatment or locate individual for follow-up.

Unknown: Zinc

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040108 06/14/2004 A 25 y/o male was landscaping for his employer. He was wearing personal protective equipment including eye protectors but the herbicide got in his right eye. He irrigated the eye and sought medical care. He was seen twice for

corneal irritation.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040109 06/02/2004 A 69 y/o man applied an herbicide over 2 days. He wore the same pair of pants both days. He developed neurological, gastrointestinal and dermal symptoms. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital. He later said that he thought that his symptoms may have been caused by the fire retardant on his lawn chair.
Unknown: 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040111 06/13/2004 A 27 y/o female with a history of cardiac and respiratory problems set off a fogger, left the house, and returned to rescue her pets. She then had significant respiratory symptoms and called the WPC and went to the hospital. She could not be located for follow-up.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; Methoprene, S-; N-octylbicycloheptene dicarboximide

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040113 06/13/2004 A 41 y/o female was on the roof of her home hosing off moss that had been treated two weeks earlier. While doing this a piece of debris flew up into her eyes resulting in ocular symptoms. When symptoms persisted into the evening

she decided to seek medical attention around 3:00 AM.
Herbicide/algicide: Zinc

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 165

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040115 05/15/2004 A 52 y/o male farm worker appli ed herbicides to raspberries and blackberries for 3 days without symptoms. He then developed respiratory symptoms and his employer provide he and his co-workers with PPE. His co-worker felt better but he continued feeling badly. His symptoms improved after three weeks. However, he continued to have some respiratory symptoms and sought medical

care. Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Triclopyr, Paraquat dichloride

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040117 06/18/2004 A 69 y/o female home owner applied a ready-to-use herbicide to weeds along her driveway. Wind blew the spray into her face. She was wearing glasses but immediately went in, washed off. Be cause she has had eye surgery and has concerns for her eyes she went to the c linic with mild ocul ar symptoms within 30 minutes after exposure.
Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040118 03/15/2004 A 49 y/o female and 51 y/o male developed respiratory and ocular irritation after an application was conducted on pears next to their property. They reported seeing the drift and one individual sought medical care 3 days after the exposure. WSDA investigated.
Herbicide and Fungicide (03 & 04): Copper hydroxide Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Kaolin

2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040120 06/23/2004 A 37 y/o female took her son to th e doctor. The provider observed that the mother had dermal and ocular symptoms. She reported that she and others were assigned to follow behind the application and thin the trees. A WISHA inspection was conducted but did not ma ke a determination on compliance with

REI. Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Kaolin

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040121 06/23/2004 The mother of an 18 m/o boy got lic e shampoo in the child's eyes and the child also ingested some of the bath water. The mother used a large syringe to flush the child’s eyes. After an hour the boy began to cry and kept his eyes closed. He was taken for medical care and diagnosed with chemical conjunctivitis. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040122 06/24/2004 A 60 y/o male set off two indoor foggers on the first floor of him home. After discharging the foggers he walked around the home for 2-3 minutes. He began coughing and experiencing other symptoms. He showered and was still concerned with the coughing so went to the walk-in-clinic.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040123 06/26/2004 A 40 y/o female was exposed while spraying a wasp nest on her house with a pressurized aerosol container. As she sprayed the aerosol came back into her face. She immediately experienced neurological, respiratory and dermal symptoms. 911 was called and she was transported by EMTs to local ER. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tetramethrin (ANSI);
Phenothrin, D1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 166

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040124 06/25/2004 A 25 y/o male employee applicator reported systemic symptoms when he inhaled fumes from an outdoor fogger. He sought medical care the same day.
Insecticide and other: Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040127 06/05/2004 A 29 y/o male farm worker reported possible exposure to residues when he was hauling lugs into the orchard for cherry ha rvesters. He got dust from the trees in both eyes and sought medical care for ocular and dermal symptoms. Application was made 3 days before he became ill.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Malathion (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040128 06/12/2004 A 23 y/o female developed gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms after she was exposed by application nearby. She did not wash after the exposure and symptoms began in about 15 minutes. She sought medical care two days later for continuing symptoms.
Insecticide and other: Azinphos-Methyl

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040129 06/12/2004 A 47 y/o male applicator had an ocular exposure while pouring product into the spray tank. An unexpected gust of wind blew the product into his eyes. He developed immediate symptoms and sought medical care later in the day. He had safety goggles but was not wearing them at time of exposure. Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040130 06/07/2004 A 23 y/o applied a tank mix of herbicides around dairy building and did not wear eye protection. He felt the mist and developed ocular symptoms. He also had observed welding activity without eye protection. He sought medical care the next day.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Dimethylamine 2,4- dichlorophenoxyacetate

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040133 06/10/2004 Two males ages 33 and 29 were working in a nursery when an application was made nearby. They smelled the chemical and both developed neurological symptoms. Additionally, one had respiratory and the other gastrointestinal symptoms. One person sought medical care.
Fungicide: Pentachloronitrobenzene

2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040134 06/25/2004 A 16 y/o male developed neurological, dermal, respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms after an herbicide leaked from backpack sprayer onto his back. He did not wash his back until 6 hrs post exposure. He neither wore nor was given any PPE. He did not seek medical care until four days after onset of symptoms. Unknown: 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040135 06/28/2004 A 23 y/o applicator sought medical care for dermal symptoms that developed while spraying apples. The case could not be reached for follow-up.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl, Acetamiprid

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 167

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040137 06/30/2004 A 63 y/o female who worked in her yard occasionally applied a systemic insecticide. She wore a long sleeved shirt and gloves as required by the label. The gloves were chemically resistant on the palm and had absorbent cotton on the backs. On the third day after applying she noticed a rash on her arms and on her neck. Four days later she sought medical treatment.
Insecticide and other: Acephate (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040138 07/06/2004 A 16 y/o girl at a youth camp applied an insect repellent and later rubbed her eye without washing her hands. The eye became irritated. She showered 10-20 minutes. The next day both eyes were irritated and the girl was taken to a clinic

for medical attention.
Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040139 06/16/2004 A 30 y/o male construction worker used a spray for wasps. He was standing four feet away from the target. He reported no direct contact with the spray and did not wash his face after application. He later developed itching around his neck and was directed to seek medical care. He sought medical care after

work. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methyl-4-oxo-3-(2-propenyl)- 2-cyclopenten-1-yl d-trans-2,2- dimethyl-3-(2-methyl-1- propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate, 2-; Tralomethrin (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040144 07/06/2004 A 75 y/o male was pouring an herbicide concentrate into a funnel to mix with water. The wind blew some of the concentrate into his mouth. He immediately washed out his mouth. The next day his tongue, uvula, and lips were irritated. He sought medical attention.
Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; Dimethylamine 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040147 07/12/2004 A 61 y/o male home owner filled a pump sprayer to spray moss and the clamp holding the hose failed. The spray hit his face, arms and hands. He immediately washed but did not flush his eyes. That evening his vision was blurry and he sought medical care. He had not read the label that indicated that exposure could cause irreversible eye damage.
Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040148 07/12/2004 A mother and 16 y/o son had prepared a mixture of moss killer and bleach to

brush on exterior walls of their mobile home. The youth removed his goggles as
he carried the mixture in a bucket, but then tripped and spill ed the mixture. It splashed into his eye. He was treated for a chemical burn and lost a week of

work Herbicide/algicide: Zinc Unknown: sodium hypochlorite

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040159 06/04/2004 A 50 y/o unlicensed male applying to a potato field under windy conditions and the spray hit his face. He was not wearing any PPE nor does label require it. He sought medical care for dermal and ocular symptoms. Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 168

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040160 05/25/2004 A 53 y/o male office worker reported ocular symptoms after a co-worker applied an insecticide inside the work area. He was seen twice for symptoms. The diagnosis on the last visit was "toxic conjunctivitis". Baits are now used for ant problems in the office.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040162 06/28/2004 A 27 y/o male unlicensed groundskeeper at a RV park/sport camp developed ocular symptoms after he opened a valve on the sprayer and the herbicide splashed in his eyes. He was not wearing eye protection and the label does not require it. He sought medical care the same day.
Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040164 07/13/2004 A 43 y/o male mechanic for a nursery was repairing a ground sprayer over a two day period. He could smell pesticides and wore rubber gloves. He developed neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms and sought medical care two days after symptoms began.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040165 07/17/2004 A 59 y/o male working with airport security opened a bag of swimming pool algicide. He got the product on his hands and transferred it to his face and eyes. He may have inhaled some of the product as he had respiratory, dermal, ocular and neurological symptoms. He was taken by ambulance to an ER Disinfectant/broad spectrum for water sanitation: Poly(oxyethylene(dimethyliminio)ethylene(dimethyliminio)ethylene dichloride)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040169 07/17/2004 A 73 y/o female and 72/y/o male developed ocular, neurological and respiratory symptoms after an aerial application was made approx. 1 mile from their home to a potato field. They could smell the pesticide and sought medical care the next day. Residue samples collected by WSDA two days post application at the couple’s home were negative for methamidophos. They did not test for sulfur or copper hydroxide. Fungicide: Sulfur, Copper hydroxide Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methamidophos (ANSI)

2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040171 07/21/2004 A 25 y/o female applicator, under supervision, was applying an herbicide with an injector gun to knotweed on a river bank when she accidentally stabbed her arm. She developed dermal symptoms and sought medical care. Although she did not inject product the needle may have been contaminated with product. Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040173 07/21/2004 A 29 y/o female was using an aerosol wasp spray when a gust of wind blew the spray into her left eye. There was immediate discomfort. She washed the eye for about 5 minutes, but irritation continued and she called WPC. She sought medical care the next day.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tralomethrin (ANSI);

Prallethrin

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 169

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040174 07/23/2004 A 43 y/o female was applying an herbicide and was sprayed in the right eye from a cracked nozzle assembly. She washed with running water for 10-15 minutes and still developed ocul ar pain. She sought medical attention the same day.
Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040175 05/25/2004 An 11 m/o male developed a rash and other symptoms after an unlicensed PCO make a crack and crevice treatment and discharged a bug bomb in the apartment. The child lay on the carpet a few hours after the apartment was treated. The child was initially seen in the ER five days post application and four times at the clinic for continuing symptoms.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040176 07/25/2004 A 75 y/o male set off six aerosol foggers in his home to control bees. During the application a fogger released its contents into his face. Coughing he stumbled out of he home and collapsed in his yard. Neighbors called 911 and he was

taken to an ER.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040177 07/24/2004 A 36 y/o female was exposed to a cancelled product containing an organochlorine insecticide meant to be used on livestock. She developed ocular and neurological symptoms. She smelled the product and felt it on her face and hands. Samples taken by WSDA were positive. She continued to not feel well one month after the exposure.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methoxychlor; Aromatic petroleum derivative solvent; Toxaphene

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040178 07/24/2004 A 45 y/o male developed mild symptoms shortly after applying product in his home to kill roaches. He went to the local hospital, was treated and released.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040184 07/23/2004 A 56 y/o male's left eye was visually non-functional. His right eye felt dry. He accidentally applies drops of an insecticide repellent to his good eye. He immediately had symptoms, irrigated the eye, and later sought emergency

medical care.
Unknown: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040186 07/21/2004 A 46 y/o chemically sensitive disabled female and a 51 y/o male developed neurological, ocular and respiratory symptoms after a road-side application had been made about one mile away. They could smell the chemicals and both sought medical care.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Dimethylamine 2,4- dichlorophenoxyacetate, Dicamba, diglycoamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

1 Insufficient Information

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 170

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040187 07/23/2004 A 19 y/o male was filling his spray tank when the product splashed into his left eye. He was not wearing eye protection. He reported immediate ocular symptoms but did not seek medical care until 3 days later when symptoms did

not resolve.
Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040188 07/13/2004 A 27 y/o male lawn care worker was filling his backpack sprayer with an herbicide when the mixture splashed up into his right eye. He immediately

washed it out for about 10 minutes. Still painful and sensitive to light the next day he sought medical care. He had not worn protective eye care. PPE for eyes not required by the label. Employer provided goggles but case did not use

them.
Herbicide/algicide:

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040191 07/30/2004 A 50 y/o female was camping when a cousin/co-camper sprayed her with insect repellent thinking it was a spray mister filled with water. She didn't wash her face or eyes until the next day when she sought medical care for ocular
symptoms.
Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040192 07/30/2004 A 52 y/o truck driver was near an application containing chlorpyrifos methyl. The application was to a mound of wheat prior to storage. He developed neurologic, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular symptoms and was transported to the emergency room later that evening by his wife. He was given atropine, stabilized, and admitted for two days.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Chlorpyrifos-methyl (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: High/Severe

040193 07/30/2004 A 37 y/o window cleaner was splashed in the eye with wood shake treatment. He was not available for follow-up. Medical record indicates his eyes were flushed at the exposure site and he was taken by ambulance to an urgent care

clinic for treatment.
Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Copper naphthenate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040197 07/13/2004 A 47 y/o male applicator was applying when the wind came up and blew spray into his eyes. He wore full PPE. The pat ient received treatment for chemical irritation of his eyes.
Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.):

Prohexadione calcium

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040200 08/02/2004 A 45 y/o female believed she had evacuated her animals from her home prior to setting off four 6oz. Foggers. She realiz ed one of her cats was still in the home and went back in to retrieve the cat. She experienced respiratory symptoms and

was taken to the ER.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 171

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040201 08/05/2004 A 28 y/o female sprayed the interior of her home for spiders and ants. She got some of the product on her hands although she was wearing gloves. She developed dermal and respiratory symptoms. Medical care was sought the same day.
Unknown: Pyrethrins, Piperonyl butoxide, Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040202 08/06/2004 An 86 y/o male used a hose-end applicator to spray to his roof for moss control. He was not wearing goggles and the spray blew back into his left eye. He irrigated his eye and sought medical care.
Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040204 05/20/2004 A 31 y/o male pesticide loader inhaled vapors that drifted from nearby application. He felt ill that evening and called his foreman. He came and took him to the ER. He had neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms. He was not wearing any PPE.
Insecticide and other: Azinphos-Methyl

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040208 08/12/2004 A 26 y/o female customer was shopping in a home improvement store when a store employee tried to help her reach a product on a shelf. The cap was loose and the contents spilled into her face, mouth and eyes. She was immediately washed off and was taken in for attention. She had eye irritation.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate, O,O1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040209 08/12/2004 A 35 y/o employee at a nursery cut the plastic tarp covering a field fumigation to allow the gas to dissipate. The fumigant entered his leather boot. He took a shower but developed symptoms and called the WPC. Unknown: Methyl bromide, Chloropicrin

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040210 07/22/2004 A 43 y/o male applicator was pouring product into a bucket of water prior to loading the spray tank when the mixture splashed into his eye. He had eye protection with him but he was not wearing it. He had immediate ocular symptoms and sought medical care
Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040211 04/02/2004 Two male irrigation district workers (41 and 63 y/o) developed symptoms when they walked in an area where a fumigant had been dumped. They did not seek medical treatment. WSDA tests were positive for residues of the product.
Fumigant: Metam-sodium

2 Probable Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040213 08/18/2004 A 63 y/o male home owner had dermal and ocular symptoms after spraying an herbicide on his driveway. He said the hose connection was loose and product leaked onto his hands. It was hot and he wiped his face with his hands while spraying. He sought medical care for his symptoms.
Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 172

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040215 08/24/2004 A 31 y/o female accidentally sprayed product in her eye while applying to her cat. She had ocular symptoms and sought medical care.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Fipronil

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040221 08/22/2004 A 57 y/o female shampooed twice with a pediculicide and on the second time some of the product went into her eye. She developed ocular symptoms and sought medical care.
Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040222 08/25/2004 An 18 y/o male fence builder accidentally sprayed himself directly in the eye as he was going to apply the repellent to his arm. He developed severe pain and chemical burn in the left eye. He sought medical care almost daily for 10 days while the eye healed.
Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040224 08/28/2004 A 52 y/o female placed the product on the washer and vibration shook it off and it broke on floor. Multiple efforts were made to clean up the spill and in the process a drop splashed into her eye. She sought medical care for ocular
symptoms. Fungicide: Chlorothalonil (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040225 08/31/2004 A 44 y/o female homeowner sprayed in her rose garden. There was no wind and then a gust blew into her face and she breathed in the product. She immediately became symptomatic, was put in shower by her husband, became worse and was taken for emergency care. The case has hx of asthma and the label apparently had cautionary comments for people with that condition.
Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040229 08/28/2004 An 81 y/o female was drifted upon in her garden when her son made an application to an adjacent pear orchard. She developed dermal and respiratory symptoms. She initially was taken to her primary provider and 5 days later she taken to the ER for continuing symptoms.
Unknown: Ziram, 1-Naphthaleneacetic Acid, Potassium Salt

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040232 08/04/2004 A 29 y/o male licensed pesticide applicator reported an occupational exposure at his workplace. The patient presented to the clinic complaining of respiratory problems. He sprayed chemicals on peaches trees for 5 days prior to his illness. The injury occurred while he was fixing broken pipes that distribute

herbicide. He did not wear PPE.
Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040235 09/16/2004 A 54 y/o female developed systemic symptoms 3 hours after spilling insecticide on her hand during mixing. She did not wash it off for approximately 15-30 minutes. She wore no PPE while applying to her yard. She sought medical care one day later. Symptoms resolved over 1-2 weeks.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Malathion (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 173

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040236 09/07/2004 A 45 year old female developed acute respiratory distress after starting a flea fogger in the back seat of her2-door car. She had trouble exiting immediately and breathed in the aerosol. She was treated on scene by paramedics and transported to ER. Her symptoms resolved with treatment.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040239 09/09/2004 A 41 year old husband and 35 year old wife were seated about 35 feet from a room in a restaurant being fogged for gnats. The entrance to the room was sealed with plastic and tape. They smelled a chemical and left the restaurant within 15 minutes without ordering food. They later reported eye irritation and

headache. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI)

2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040241 08/21/2004 A 40 y/o male PCO was spraying the perimeter of a house when the nozzle malfunctioned and sprayed his skin. He was wearing all required PPE but spray came in under his safety glasses. He flushed his eyes but still had ocular symptoms, and went to the clinic.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040242 08/30/2004 A 33 y/o female health clinic worker had an asthmatic reaction to insecticide residue in the office. The janitor had sprayed for spiders while she was gone for lunch. When she returned she exper ienced coughing and other respiratory effects. She was treated at her clinic work place.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040243 08/17/2004 A 23 y/o male employee was washing chemicals with a water hose. The chemicals were left over spills, drips and splashes from a wood treatment facility. He had neurological and respirat ory symptoms and sought medical care one week later when repeated exposures to chemical vapors caused similar
symptoms. Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Copper Ethanolamine Complexes, mixed

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040244 09/14/2004 Two carpenters, a father and son ages 54 and 20, were working beneath a wooden deck when it was sprayed from above. They inhaled the product and had dermal exposures. They went to a medical facility and on arrival they had no objective symptoms. Several unsuccessful efforts were made to contact

them. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI)

2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040245 09/15/2004 A 2y/o boy was taken to the ER, to his primary HCP and then to a specialist after continuing eye irritation. This followed a lice shampoo application that got into his eyes.
Unknown: Pyrethrins, Piperonyl butoxide

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 174

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040247 09/20/2004 A 43 y/o female applied a dog flea and tick repellant to her back. She developed dermal symptoms. She contact ed WPC for advice. The symptoms disappeared after she showered.
Insecticide and other: Tetrachlorvinphos

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040248 09/18/2004 A 49 y/o female forgot to remove the cap of a flea insecticide container and squeezed it with considerable force rupt uring the container and squirting the product in her eye. She immediately washed out the eye. Pain and irritation increased so she sought medical attention.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040249 09/19/2004 A 22 y/o male developed OP symptoms after he accidentally ingested about 6 oz. of diluted malathion solution. He had been using the chemical in his yard and left some in a milk jug. The next day, he poured the contents in a coffee cup and drank it. He sought medical att ention 15 minutes later. He was treated at an emergency room. Lab evidence confirmed the exposure.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Malathion (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040250 08/10/2004 New home owners contracted to hav e their shake roof cleaned and treated to

extend the roof life. The chemical tr eatment volatilized and the owners and two next door neighbors sought medical attention. The hot summer weather caused the chemical odor to linger for several weeks. Many members of the residential community made comments about the offensive and irritating odor.
Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Copper naphthenate

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

3 Possible Severity: (3) Low/Mild

040251 09/25/2004 A 36 y/o female sprayed an aerosol spray on spider webs around her home. The spray bounced off the exterior walls and into her eyes. She was wearing glasses but they provided no protection. She attempted to flush her eyes and called WPC. As she was having difficulty opening her eyes for more flushing,

she went to an ER for treatment.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Lambda-cyhalothrin

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040252 08/24/2004 An 18 y/o male was weeding at a community club and golf course when coworkers sprayed him with aerosol insect repellent and accidentally sprayed him in the face/eyes. He immediately flushed his eyes for15 minutes. The irritation resolved fairly quickly but he was taken to a clinic for attention.
Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040254 08/12/2004 A PCO treated offices for fleas after work hours with an aerosol insecticide. The carpets were then vacuumed and the office was locked. The next morning about 15 staff smelled the pesticide and some felt ill. A 49 y/o female had respiratory and neurological symptoms and sought medical care. Large fans were brought in and additional cleaning was provided.
Insecticide and other: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Methoprene, S1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 175

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040255 09/06/2004 A 23 y/o male landscaper assistant applied a weed control product with a hand sprayer at a High School. He didn't recall significant contact with the chemical. However, that evening he developed dermal symptoms on his extremities. The next day he sought medical treatment for an apparent allergic reaction. Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040256 09/26/2004 A 61 year old male inhaled and swallowed spray while spraying his fruit trees. He developed throat irritation and lost sleep. . He sought medical attention 14 hours later. He refused to provide additional information to the DOH investigator.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Rotenone; Cube

Resins other than rotenone

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040257 09/25/2004 A 56 y/o female and her 78 y/o mother apartments were treated for fleas. They left for 4 hours as requested. The next day the daughter and mother reported dermal symptoms. Only the daughter sought medical care.
Insect Growth Regulator (IGR): Tetramethrin (ANSI); Phenothrin, D-; Pyriproxyfen Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans(ANSI); Methoprene, S2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040258 03/21/2004 A 39 year old female was drifted from a spray application to a neighboring apple orchard while working in her garden. She felt and smelled the mist. She developed gastrointestinal, dermal and neurol ogical symptoms but did not seek

medical care.
Herbicide/algicide: Dicamba, sodium salt

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040260 10/05/2004 A 7 y/o girl developed neurological and dermal symptoms after her hair was washed with lice shampoo. Her father said that her hair may not have been properly rinsed after the shampoo was applied. She developed symptoms approximately 18 hours later and was taken for medical care.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants):

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040263 09/19/2004 A 27 y/o female farm worker had a dermal allergic reaction while picking apples. She sought medical treatment one day later. Her employer indicated that theorchard had been sprayed with pesticide 4 days before she entered. The reentry intervals were observed but she still developed symptoms characteristic with one of the pesticides in the formulations.
Multiple (product is classified as multiple classes ...): Thiram Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Potassium 1-naphthaleneacetate

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040265 09/14/2004 A 23 y/o female nursery employee developed generalized rash on her body. The patient was sorting plants in an area treated with pesticide the day before. She sought medical treatment for allergic dermatitis.

Disinfectant/broad spectrum for water sanitation: Mancozeb Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Paclobutrazol (ANSI)

1 Probable

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 176

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040266 06/05/2004 A 47 y/o female developed ocular symptoms and general discomfort after her neighbor applied an exorbitant amount of herbicide on their mutual property line. The neighbor had been ordered by the local Weed Control Board to eradicate weeds in her yard. The application was so concentrated that some of the herbicide moved to the patient's property. WSDA samples were positive for

excessive amounts of herbicide. Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040268 10/13/2004 A 44 y/o male set off an aerosol fogger in his home and accidentally got some of the spray in his eye. He washed his eye, continued to have irritation, called poison control and went for medical care. Insecticide: Flea fogger, unknown brand

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040271 10/21/2004 A 19 y/o male set off 3 foggers in his home. He thought that the foggers were not working and went back into the house. He inhaled the chemical vapors and went to the ER with systemic symptoms. Educational material was provided.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Moderate

040272 10/31/2004 A 37 y/o old female set off 4 foggers in the morning on the 2nd floor of her home. That evening she set off 3 additional foggers on the 1st floor and went upstairs. She returned multiple times to disconnect her smoke alarm. She had respiratory & neurological symptoms and called the EMTs. She was evaluated and not referred for treatment but the EMTs opened the windows on the 2nd floor where her children were sleeping. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040273 11/03/2004 A 3 y/o boy was discovered in home bath room with a bottle of lindane shampoo. He was spitting and had lindane on his face. Parents washed him

and induced emesis x2 but the child had a seizure about an hour after exposure. Child was observed in ER and discharged.

Unknown: lindane

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040274 11/06/2004 A 39 y/o female was poured a moss control product from a large container into a hand sprayer. The sprayer wouldn't work so she poured the contents back into a bucket. She soaked a rag and wiped the house deck structure with it. She wore no eye protection and some chemical flew up into her eye. She rinsed the eye, later called WPC and then sought treatment at an ER.
Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040275 11/07/2004 A 43 y/o mother brought a stuffed animal close to her face to smell it after her daughter had just dusted it with tick and flea powder. She inhaled the powder. She went home, called the ER and went in for treatment as she was having anxiety and difficulty breathing.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 177

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040276 10/21/2004 A 24 y/o male PCO applied an insect icide on the ceiling of a house. He wore safety glasses, but the spray from his back pack sprayer came in behind his glasses and got in his eyes. He immediately washed his eyes for 15 minutes and then sought medical treatment.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; Piperonyl butoxide

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040278 11/09/2004 A 49 y/o male was working on the roof following a moss control application. He believes he picked up some chemical granules on his hands and rubbed his eyes. His eyes were irritated. He washed his eyes and was taken for medical

attention.
Herbicide/algicide: Zinc sulfate monohydrate

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

040281 11/05/2004 A 51 y/o male applied 7-10 cans of aerosol flea spray to control a cat flea problem. He had pre-existing sores on his legs, couldn't wear socks, and walked through the pesticide treated carpet in his home. He reacted and three days later went to the hospital. He was admitted for 9 days. Pesticide exposure appeared to cause dermal symptoms and pre-existing medical problems led to hospitalization. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; Piperonyl butoxide; Tetramethrin (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040282 11/09/2004 Two adult male county workers beca me ill from a strong pesticide smell that came from soil while digging out a drainage ditch at the end of a culvert. One worker sought medical care. Numerous pesticides were detected in soil samples taken from the area by WSDA.
Unknown: Metsulfuron-methyl, Sulf ometuron methyl, Sulfur, Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Metribuzin

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

1 Insufficient Information

040283 11/16/2004 A 25 y/o male entered a room two minutes after it was treated with a fogger and immediately experienced systemic symptoms.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040284 11/17/2004 A 55 y/o male had ocular symptoms after using a prescribed crème for scabies. He was using it for lice and accidentally rubbed some into his eyes. EMTs were

called and he was seen at an ER.
Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040287 11/01/2004 A 67 y/o male vineyard worker presented to the ER complaining of systemic symptoms. He had been picking up spent chlorine canisters The chlorine was put into the drip irrigation system to control algae in the drip lines.

Unknown: Chlorine

1 Possible Severity: Low/mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 178

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040288 11/25/2004 A 31 y/o male swallowed herbicide while siphoning herbicide from one container to another. He was evaluated at an ER for cardiac, gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms and admitted for 3 days. He had also reported at least one other accidental ingestion exposure a month previous, resulting in trips to the ER. Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride

1 Probable Severity: Moderate

040289 11/25/2004 A 16 m/o boy was found with the product and apparently was trying to suck the bottle. After 20 minutes he vomited 2-3 times and was taken to the hospital. An unknown amount was ingested.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI)

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040292 11/27/2004 A 57 year old male homeowner used a push type spreader to apply a granular moss control product. He wore a half face respirator although it is not required by the product label. He developed respiratory problems and believes that he breathed product dust because of a poor respirator fit. After 9 days he had little improvement but did not seek medical care.
Herbicide/algicide: Ferrous sulfate monohydrate; Calcium sulfate

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040293 12/01/2004 A 46 y/o male applied a moss control product on his lawn. He used a hose-end sprayer and wore no PPE eye protection. He splashed the contents in his eyes when he unscrewed the container off the end of the hose. He immediately washed his eyes per label, called WPC. He did not seek medical assistance. Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040294 12/05/2004 A 38 y/o female's hand burned after applying a flea and tick spray from a squeeze tube to her cat. She also developed a rash where she touched her chest. By the next morning her symptoms had resolved and she did not seek

medical attention.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Phenothrin, D1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040295 12/10/2004 An 11 y/o girl helping her sister treat their cat for fleas had eye symptoms when the cat jumped into the girl's arms. He r eyes were irrigated, but symptoms persisted and parents called WPC.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040296 12/11/2004 A 26 y/o female applied a flea insecticide to her cat and shortly afterward the cat brushed against the owner's eye. She felt immediate eye irritation. Her husband washed her eye and called WPC. She did not seek further medical help.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 179

# 2004 Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of Definite , Probable, and Possible Exposures

Case Exposure Date Incident Description

040297 12/13/2004 An 18 m/o sprayed himself in the face and eyes with a flea insecticide sold only through licensed veterinarians. He had ocular and dermal symptoms. His parent called the WPC for guidance. His condition did not worsen and they did not

seek medical care.
Insecticide and other: Pyrethrins; Dipropyl isocinchomeronate; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; Piperonyl butoxide

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040298 10/05/2004 A 48 y/o male walked through his property after it had overflowed with run off from an adjacent potato field chemigation application. One of his irrigation boots had a hole. His foot received a chemical burn and he also had eye irritation. WSDA samples were positive for residues from the chemigation application. Fumigant: Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate

1 Definite Severity: Moderate

040300 12/19/2004 A 36 y/o female set off a fogger in her 32 y/o male friend's apartment. She was not aware that he was home asleep. She left but forgot her keys and on returning she knocked over the fogger and was inside about 5 minutes. Both of them had headache and respiratory symptoms. They called the Poison Center

for advice. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

2 Possible Severity: (2) Low/Mild

040301 12/21/2004 A 42 y/o male veget ation management employee for a utility company climbed a tree that had been sprayed to trim branches. Later he developed ocular symptoms and went to the employee health clinic.
Herbicide/algicide: Butoxyethyl triclopyr

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

040302 12/20/2004 A 68 y/o male used an aerosol insectic ide to control roaches in his motor home. He applied the product for 4-5 minutes. He noticed that he had a sore throat when he went to bed that night. The next day he felt better but his wife called

WPC to make sure he would be ok.
Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Esfenvalerate

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040304 12/27/2004 A 2 y/o girl sprayed herself in the face with a can of flea and tick spray left on the kitchen counter. Her mother found the crying child with the can in her hand. She immediately washed the child and called WPC. She washed the child again. After a nap, the child felt fine.
Insecticide and other: Tetrachlorvinphos

1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

040305 12/27/2004 A 9 y/o boy "playfully" released an insect fogger in his home. Two adults were present at the time. A 40 y/o female reported upper respiratory symptoms. She

called WPC for advice and did not seek other medical care. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Piperonyl butoxide; Allethrin,
d-; Phenothrin, D1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 180Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 181 

# Agency Data Summary

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, WISHAWashington State Department ofLabor and Industries, WISHAWashington State Department of Labor and Industries,Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004City,County,Inspection#PesticidesInvolvedEmployeesCovered byinspection/TotalEmployeesType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Citations/CostsType ofInspectionWardenGrant307191882Raxil XT, Dividend, Extreme,Apron XL, Lindane 302 / 2 Seed1/8/20041/8/2004Serious citation: No hazardcommunication programGeneral citation: Accident preventionprogram not effectivePenalties assessed$100.00ProgrammedBrewsterOkanogan308241223Organophosphate,N-methyl carbamate14 / 200 Apple Orchard12/2/200412/14/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedBrewsterOkanogan308241231Diazinon 50W, Sevin 4F,azinphos methyl,Dimethoate15 / 15 Apple Orchard12/2/200412/16/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedBrewsterOkanogan308184159Pesticides6 / 6 Apple Orchard11/19/200412/6/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedYakimaYakima308241637Diazinon 50W, Carbaryl 4L,Sevin 4F, azinphos methyl,Dimethoate50 / 50 Apple Orchard12/2/200412/2/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedZillahYakima308410513Sevin 4F, Carzol SP,Lorsban5 Orchardpacking12/6/200412/6/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedOthelloFranklin308410539Sevin 4F, Rally 40W,Success, Amid-Thin W,Gramoxone max, Carzol SP,dormant oil, zeta-zinc,Lorsban, Round-up4 / 4 Apple Orchard12/6/200412/6/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedLabor and Industries Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report183Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004City,County,Inspection#PesticidesInvolvedEmployeesCovered byinspection/TotalEmployeesType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Citations/CostsType ofInspectionWapatoYakima308410588Sevin 4F, Guthion 50 WSP,Carzol SP, Intrepid 50WP,Lorsban 4E3 / 200 Apple orchard12/7/200412/7/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedOthelloFranklin308410935Guthion (azinphos methyl50W)13 / 250 Apple orchard11/29/200411/29/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedWapatoYakima308411784Organophosphate, N-methylcarbamate50 / 210 Apple orchard12/3/200412/3/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedPaterosOkanogan308426139Dimethoate 400, Sevin 4F,Guthion 50WP, Lorsban 4E,Carzol SP26 / 26 Apple orchard12/8/200412/9/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedZillahYakima308426329Organophosphate, N-methylcarbamate10 / 200 Orchard,Packing plant12/10/200412/10/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedNachesYakima308426808Lorsban, Carzol SP, azinphosmethyl30 / 100 Apple, pearorchard12/14/200412/14/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedYakimaYakima308438399Lorsban 4E, Agrimek 15EC,Sevin4 / 4 Orchard12/8/200412/8/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedYakimaYakima308439066Organophosphate, N-methylcarbamate5 / 130 Orchard,Packing plant12/20/200412/20/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedProsserBenton308439389Lorsban, azinphos methyl50 / 50 Orchard12/20/200412/21/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedOutlookYakima308440114Supracide 2E, Lorsban 4E,Guthion, Imidan 70W5 / 5Orchard,-12/16/200412/16/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedLabor and Industries Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report184Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004City,County,Inspection#PesticidesInvolvedEmployeesCovered byinspection/TotalEmployeesType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Citations/CostsType ofInspectionOrovilleOkanogan308184738Organophosphates, N-methylcarbamate6 / 200 Apple orchard,Packing plant11/23/200412/16/2004General citation: Not keeping handlinghours for class 1 & 2 OP and N-methylcarbamates.No penalties assessedProgrammedMattawaGrant307196725Pesticides26 / 32 Agriculture1/14/20042/2/2004General citation: No hazardcommunication program.No penalties assessedProgrammedOkanoganOkanogan307198838Kopertox (fungicide)2 / 2 Livestock2/10/20042/10/2004Serious citation: No hazardcommunication program.General citations: No accidentprevention program, no documentation ofsafety meetings.Penalties assessed$100.00ProgrammedMattawaGrant307198853Fungicides, insecticides,pesticides10 / 10 Potato farm2/6/20042/9/2004Serious citation: No hazardcommunication program.Penalties assessed$500.00ProgrammedLyndenWhatcom307440933Nu-Cop 50DF (cuprichydroxide)1 / 1 Blueberry farm3/10/20043/11/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedLyndenWhatcom307477562Pesticides5 / 5 Appleorchards3/17/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedSpokaneSpokane307616425Captan, Zindane, Allegiance37 / 37 Seeds ChemicalSpill4/7/20045/17/2004General citation: No employee trainingon hazard communication program.No penalties assessedComplaintMountVernonSkagit307619577Esfenvalerate Captan 501 / 10 Berry farm4/12/20044/12/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedLabor and Industries Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report185Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004City,County,Inspection#PesticidesInvolvedEmployeesCovered byinspection/TotalEmployeesType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Citations/CostsType ofInspectionMountVernonSkagit307642470Mocap9 / 9 Potatoesberries6/8/20046/8/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedMountVernonSkagit307620047Pesticides4 / 4 Berries4/22/20044/22/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedFollow-upSunnysideYakima307620724Success (spinosad), Manzate75DF (ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)45 / 45 Apple Orchard4/27/20044/27/2004General citations:Information aboutpesticide spraying not posted, no medicalevaluation for respirator, no pint eye flushNo penalties assessedComplaintRichlandFranklin307638882Guthion (azinphos methyl50W) Lorsban 4E Procure50WS Supreme oil c-c10 / 10 Apple Orchard6/17/20046/28/2004General citations:Information aboutpesticide spraying not posted, norespirator change-out schedule, norespirator fit-tests, no pint eye flush, noeyewashNo penalties assessedComplaintBurlingtonSkagit307646141Pesticides2 / 60Eggprocessing6/10/2004General citations:No monthly Safetymeetings, no MSDS Index or chemicalinventory, no annual training on respiratoruse, pesticide application recordkeepingnot kept as required.No penalties assessedProgrammedOthelloFranklin307646232Pesticides57 / 57 Apple OrchardDOH6/15/20049/29/2004General citation:No change outschedule for respirator cartridges orcanisters.No penalties assessedReferralSnohomishSnohomish307856252LI 700, Kocide, Crossbow,Wilbur Ellis R1113 / 13 Ornamentaltree farm6/16/20048/4/2004Serious citation:No eyewash availablePenalties assessed$100.00ProgrammedLabor and Industries Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report186Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004City,County,Inspection#PesticidesInvolvedEmployeesCovered byinspection/TotalEmployeesType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Citations/CostsType ofInspectionMattawaGrant307857227Guthion (azinphos methyl50W)19 / 250 Apple Orchard Exposure toGuthionresiduesprayingand thinningWSDA7/7/200410/14/2004General citation:No pesticide safetyposter within 30 days of application.Message:Ensure eyewash and eyeflush are available.ReferralMarysvilleSnohomish307858514Copper sulfate2 / 2 Dairy farm7/14/20047/14/2004Serious citation:Emergency eyewashnot available.General citations:No written hazardcommunication program, no chemicalinventory, no MSDS’s available forchemicals, no hazard communicationtraining.Penalties assessed$150.00ProgrammedQuincyGrant307863431Lorsban 4E SG2 / 3 OrchardWSDA8/18/20049/7/2004Serious citations:Employees notwearing PPE required by the label, nopesticide handler training, noCholinesterase medical monitoringprogram for handlers, no training oncholinesterase inhibiting pesticides, norespirator fit-test, medical exam andtraining not provided.General citations:pesticide poster notdisplayed at mixing station, emergencymedical information not displayed atmixing loading station, handling hoursrecords not kept, no written respiratorprogram, no emergency eyewash atmixing station.Penalties assessed$2,750.00ReferralLabor and Industries Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report187Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004City,County,Inspection#PesticidesInvolvedEmployeesCovered byinspection/TotalEmployeesType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Citations/CostsType ofInspectionOrtingPierce307863548Lorsban 4E, Tenkoz Trifluralin4, Thionex 50W, Endosulfan3EC26 / 26 Cabbage farm8/5/200410/6/2004Serious citations: no emergencyeyewash at mixing station, no writtenrespirator program, no respirator fit-test,no effective respirator training.General citations:no medical exambefore respirator use, respirators notclean, respirator improperly stored, 4grouped citations for sub-standardhousing, potable drinking water notensured, screening on windows anddoors, only one toilet and sink providedfor 26 people, no pesticide handlertraining, pesticide poster not displayed atmixing station, pesticide safetyinformation not posted after application,emergency medical information notdisplayed at mixing loading station,pesticide handling hours records notkept, no Hazard communication program.Penalties assessed$2,150.00ReferralCowicheYakima307877506Chlorpyrifos 4E10 / 200 Apple orchard Sprayingpesticides DOH8/18/20049/16/2004General citations:No medicalevaluations, no fit-tests for respirator use.No penalties assessedReferralSunnysideYakima308078054Pesticides10 / 10 Apple orchard11/18/200412/28/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedComplaintNachesYakima308241611Organophosphate, N-methylcarbamate22 / 22 Apple orchard11/26/200411/26/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedProgrammedLabor and Industries Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report188Labor and Industries Agency Data IPesticide Incident Reporting and TrackingI 2005 Annual Report189Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004tiondttCitCounInspecWhite SwYakim307846337QuincGrant307417204SunnyYakim307620328ZillahYakim307480020y,ty,tion#PesticidesInvolvedEmployeesCovered byinspection/TotalEmployeesType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Citations/CostsType ofInspecanaSurround WP3 / 125 Apple orchard6/23/20046/23/2004Serious citation:No respirator fit-tests.Message to employer:Observe the REIafter pesticide application.Penalties assessed$240.00ProgrammeyPesticides and herbicides3 / 3 Apple orchard3/15/20043/30/2004General citations:No accidentprevention program, no required L&Iposters, safety meetings not heldmonthly, potable drinking water notprovided by employer, no hand washingfacilities near portable toilet.No Penalties assessedComplainsideaPesticides45 / 45 Fruit orchards,Packing4/27/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedComplainaRubigan EC, Omite-30WSOxycom, Respond plus2 / 2 Vineyard3/12/20043/12/2004No citations issuedNo penalties assessedFollow-up

# Appendix D

License Types and Enforcement Action Definitions

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Enforcement Action

Definitions

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 191

# Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types

WSDA P ESTICIDE 

## L ICENSE 

## T YPES



## Commercial Applicator A person engaged in the business of applying pesticides to the land/property of another. This land can either be publicly or privately owned. Prior to license issuance, a Financial Responsibility Insurance Certificat e (FRIC) must be filed with WSDA by the insuring company.

Commercial Operator A person employed by a WSDA-lic ensed commercial applicator to apply pesticides to the land of another. This land can either be publicly or privately owned.

Commercial Pest

Control Consultant* A person who sells or offers pestic ides for sale at other than the licensed pesticide dealer outlet from which they are employed. In addition, commercial consultants may offer or supply

technical advice or make recommendations to the users of nonhome and garden pesticides. They may also perform wood destroying organism inspections. Licensed and employed commercial applicators and co mmercial operators may act as

commercial consultants without acquiring the consultant’s

license.

Dealer Manager* A person who supervises the distribution of pesticides (other than home and garden products) from a licensed pesticide

dealer outlet.

Private Applicator A person who applies or supervises the application of a “Restricted Use” pesticide on land owned or rented by him or his employer for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity.

Private Commercial Applicator A person who applies of supervises the use of a “Restricted Use” pesticide on land owned or rented by him or his employer for purposes other than the production of an agricultural commodity.

Public Operator A person who, while acting as an employee of a governmental agency, applies restricted use pe sticides by any means or general use pesticides by power equipment on public or private property. Public operators may act as public consultants. (Public operators licensed only in the P ublic Health category are exempt from the fee.)

Public Pest Control

Consultant* A person who, while acting as an employee of a governmental agency, offers or supplies technical advice, supervision, aid, or makes recommendations to the user of pesticides other than home and garden products. Public Consultants may not act as public operators without the operator’s license.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 193

## Demonstration and Research Applicator A person who applies or supervises the use of any experimental or restricted use pesticide to small experimental plots at no charge. Public employees performing research applications fall under the licensing requirements of the public operator.

Structural Pest Inspector An individual who performs the service of inspecting a building for wood destroying organisms, their damage, or conditions conducive to their infestation. Wood destroying organisms include insects or fungi that w ill consume, excavate, develop in, or otherwise modify the integrity of wood or wood products. They include, but are not limited to, carpenter ants, moisture ants, subterranean termites, damp wood termites, beetles in the family Anobiidae, and wood decay fungi (wood rot).

* License does not allow the holder to use or supervise the use of a restricted use pesticide. Refer to other

types for appropriate license.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 194

# Washington State Department of Agriculture, Enforcement

Action Definitions

WSDA Enforcement Action Definitions

No action indicated Not a pesticide complaint, or
Not valid, or
No violations noted, or No further action required.

Technical assistance WSDA provided information only.

Verbal Warning No evidence for further legal action but person was cautioned verbally by WSDA. No permanent record of warning.

Advisory letter/Warning

letter Some evidence of violation but not enough to take legal action. Person was warned to be

more cautious.

Notice of correction Notified that a minor violation must be corrected. Usually given thirty days. If corrected, no further action. If not corrected,

further action is taken.

Notice of

Intent/Administrative

action Legal case Usually results in a fine and/or license suspension for a varying interval.

Referred Sent to another agency for action. The violation is not in WSDA jurisdiction.

Stop sale Further sale of the product is prohibited until violation corrected. Generally an unregistered or damaged product.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 195

# Appendix E

Washington State Departme nt of Ecology, Maps

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 197

# Appendix F

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 203 

# PIRT Letter to WSDAPesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 205 

## November 10, 2005

Dannie McQueen Washington State Department of Agriculture

Post Office Box 42560 Olympia, Washington 98504-2560

MODIFICATION OF THE GENERAL PESTICIDE RULES, WAC 16-228

Dear Ms. McQueen:

The Washington State Pesticide Incident Report and Tr acking Review (PIRT) panel recommends adoption of the proposed modification to the General Pesticid e Rules, WAC 16-228. The proposed changes require notification of the application of pesticides via aerial, airblast, fumigation (outside) or overhead chemigation applications when the application site and the property boundaries touch and the application is within one half mile of schools, hospitals, nursing ho mes, adult and child day care centers.

The PIRT panel recognizes that pesticide drift is a pot entially serious route of exposure to pesticides. Prenotification of schools, daycares, and hospitals will in crease their awareness of highly toxic pesticides used nearby, facilitate feedback to the growers about th e timing of planned applications, and will expedite protective actions if drift occurs. While the proposed modifications to the General Pesticide Rules do not restrict applications of pesticides n ear sensitive sites or otherwise prevent drift, they are an important and welcome change.

We also note that others could benefit from notificat ions including: adjacent homes, assisted living facilities, senior centers, preschools, private schools, community pool s, parks, dialysis centers and medical clinics.

This recommendation was supported by a vote of the PIRT panel members in November 2005.

Sincerely,

Maryanne Guichard
Chair, PIRT Panel 

# Signed on behalf of the PIRT panel STATE OF WASHINGTON



# DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY 7171 Cleanwater Lane, Building 4 — P.O. Box 47825— Olympia, Washington 98504-7825 TDD Relay Service (800) 833-6388Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 207 

# Appendix G

DOH Comments on Metam-sodiumPesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 209 

## October 20, 2005

Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington D.C. 20460-0001

Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2005-0125

RE: Public comments for the metam-sodium docket

Washington State Department of Health conducts illn ess surveillance on pesticide-related illnesses. State law requires primary physicians to report suspected and known cases of pesticide-related illness. We also receive referrals from the Washington Poison Center, other state and local agencies, and individuals. Since 1990, our program has investigated over 5,000 reported cases of possible pesticide illnesses/in juries. Not all cases were considered related to pesticides upon investigation. Da ta from investigations are published annually and used by state agencies and community groups to guide prev ention efforts. Details about data collection methods

and incident data are available at our website http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/PEST.HTM

.

Fumigant products have long been of concern to DOH staff. Although the proportion of cases involving fumigants is not large (4 percent in a recent 5 yearperiod), fumigant-related illnesses can be severe, longlasting, and can involve large numbers of people.

Figure 1 shows the specific fumigant involved in 41 fumigant cases 1 

## investigated

in 2000-2004 in WA.

1 

## 41 cases of illness or injury considered definitely, probably or possibly related to fumigant exposure. The 41 people were involved in 23 separate events. 

## WDOH Pesticide Illness Surveillance Data, 200-2004 STATE OF WASHINGTON



# DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY 7171 Cleanwater Lane, Building 4 — P.O. Box 47825— Olympia, Washington 98504-7825 TDD Relay Service (800) 833-6388



### 0 5 10 15 20 25

Methyl

Bromide Telone Aluminum
Phosphide Metam

Sodium Other



### Events People

## Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
October 20, 2005 Page 2

Metam-sodium is the fumigant most frequently involved in reported cases. WA State does not have pesticide-use reporting so we are unable to calculate th e risk of illness per application for separate fumigant products. Metam-sodium may be reported more be cause it is used more than other fumigants.

Our program has compiled two reviews of metam-sodium cases. The first was published in the journal Clinical Toxicology 2 

## and summarized all fumigant cases from 1992-1996

. The second summarized cases
1994-2001 and was sent to the Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA in November 2003 at the start of metam-sodium’s re-registration process. This second review is attached for your convenience. For this comment period, we updated the case review with a spread sheet of 12 metam-sodium events involving 34 people investigated 2000-2004. Inves tigation of metam-sodium cases in WA reveals that there are worker protection issues as well as co mmunity drift issues with this fumigant.

Occupational Exposures: A review of our documented illnesses involving metam-s odium fumigation shows that exposures to pesticide handlers fell into four categories:

• The worker did not understand the hazards of the product,

• the worker did not have adequate respiratory protection,

• the worker was over-exposed because of equipment failure,

• the worker was over-exposed despite following label directions.

Several cases occurred when a pesticide handler drench ed their clothing or leather boots with metam-sodium, and continued working. They did not understand they were at risk for skin burns. They also must also know
how to decontaminate. For instance, one worker trie d to decontaminate his drenched leather boots with water. This allowed the rapid conversion of metam-s odium to the fumigant, MITC, and led to first and second degree burns on both feet.

Respirators are required and normally worn by meta m-sodium handlers. Unfortunately, workers have become ill when these respirators were not fit-tested to ensure an adequate seal of the face. Another worker

was in an enclosed cab but smelled the chemical. Inve stigation revealed that the cab had only a simple air filter. Employers must ensure that respirators are fit-t ested and worn properly. Handlers need to be aware that if they smell the product they must stop and check their respirator.

Several incidents occurred when hoses burst. Workers must wear goggles and skin protection when working around pressurized equipment. Accidental exposure during these incidents caused eye injury and burns to the

face. Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
October 20, 2005 Page 3

2 

## Burgess, JL; Morrissey B; Keifer, KC; and Robertson, WO (2000) Fumigant-related illnesses: Washington State’s five-year experience. Clinical Toxicology 38(1) 7-14.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 210

## Several cases of illness occurred despite apparent compliance with the label. The first two may reflect dermal

sensitization to MITC. EPA should consider that some MITC may be produced during the application and that their glove recommendation for handlers should protect against metam-sodium and MITC. If a specific glove type is necessary, the label should pr ovide the more specific glove recommendation.

940576 – Applicator had eye irritation and skin burns after his shift checking the pumping station during metam-sodium chemigation of a potato circle . Applicator noted that he wears rubber gloves but has similar reaction every year he conducts fumigation.

010201 – Applicator had dermal symptoms, wheezing and eye irritation after 4 days of soil fumigation with PPE. DOH Investig ation could not confirm that all PPE was worn properly but no

violations were identified.

020005 – Handler finished his night shift monitoring a chemigation and fell asleep in private truck parked 100 ft from the field. He awoke to a str ong smell and suffered respiratory symptoms for 6-8 weeks. There was no inversion at the start or during the application; however, an early morning inversion developed holding the fumigant close to the ground.

Community exposures Strong smelling volatiles from metam-sodium soil fumiga tions can drift to surrounding communities during or after the application and cause irritant symptoms. There is some evidence from CA incidents that persistent respiratory effects are also possible following community exposures 3 

## . In WA, most drift exposures involving metam-sodium are from chemigation methods.

Cases reported to WDOH generally do not involve direct drift of chemigation water. This doesn’t mean this type of exposure is not occurring; only that acute illn esses are not resulting or if they are, are not being reported. In fact, there are many anecdotal stories of receiving a free “car wash” when the overhead sprinklers of a central pivot system spray onto the road.

Metam-sodium drift incidents reported to WDOH usually involve drift of methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) and other volatiles after completion of the application. The largest incident reported in WA involved drift from a crop circle to an industrial facility where 17 employees were sent home. Nine employees participated in the WDOH investigation and were considered probable or possible cases. This case occurred when a weather inversion developed in the early morning hours and vo latiles from the recently chemigated field drifted to a neighboring building. Another case involved police officers making a routine traffic stop next to a field being chemigated. They did not feel spray or mist but they did report a strong smell and subsequent symptoms. Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
October 20, 2005 Page 4

Issues: Definition of drift. It is important that the EPA definition of metam-sodium drift includes drift of MITC volatiles leaving the site after fumigation. Drift of MITC volatiles must be regulated and violations

enforceable.

3 

## CDPR (2002) Evaluation of methyl isothiocyanate as a toxic air contaminan t, Part C – Human Health Assessment. Prepared by the Medical Toxicology Branch, DPR, California EPA TAC-202-01C August 26, 2002.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 211

## Measuring exposure to MITC during illness incidents. MITC is a gas and is present in air. Presently WSDA, the main agency enforcing EPA rul es against pesticide drift, does not have air sampling equipment. This means that when an incident occurs, they must document the drift with visual observations and other methods. Air sampling would allow for better investigati on of drift complaints. It would also aid in the human health investigations.

Investigating and mitigating co mmunity inhalation hazard . DOH is concerned with reported air monitoring

data from CA 4 

## . These data show that air levels of MITC in agricultural communities exceeded levels of human health concern. Lee et al. (2002) reported th at exposure estimates for MITC exceeded health-based reference values for 50 percent of th e population in the monitored areas. This report from the California Department of Health Services, ranked MITC as one of the top pesticide air pollutants in CA 4 

## . Washington growers tend to use chemigation methods rather than sh ank injection. Chemigation is associated with more off-gassing of MITC 5 

## . Washington State does not currently con duct community air monitoring to pesticides

and therefore can not evaluate whether similar exceedences are occurring in WA.

We encourage EPA to assess and mitigate potential inha lation hazard in communities living near fumigated fields. We urge EPA to collect and use data from Washi ngton rather than rely solely on Florida or CA data. Washington State is second to CA in the amount of meta m-sodium applied annually. WA air data will ensure that fumigation practices, soil type, and weather patter ns unique to WA are included in the model and that WA residents are protected by EPA risk assessments.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Barbara Morrissey, MS Toxicologist, Pesticide Program: Illness Monitoring and Prevention

Illness/injury i ncidents involving metam-sodium, 2000- 2004, Washington

Brief summary of pesticide illness investigations co nducted by the Washington Department of Health, Pesticide Program For definitions of DOH determinations go to: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pestillness-investigation.htm#Howclassifycases

DOH# Mo/Year (exposure) County Product DOH

determination Narrative

000186 May 2000 Yakima Vapam Probable A 33 year old worker was applying Vapam to hops by hand-held gun

attached to truck mounted tank. He was wearing leather boots and no

chemical resistant PPE. He splashed liquid on boots and continued working. He developed

contact dermatitis on his feet and sought medical care.

4 

## Lee S et al. (2002) Community exposures to airborne agricultural pesticides in California: Ranking of inhalation risks. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (12): 1175-1184.

5 

## Sullivan DA et al. (2004) Control of off-gassing rates of me thyl isothiocyanate from the application of metam-sodium
by chemigation and shank injection. Atmospheric Environment 38:2257-2470.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 212

### 000308 November

2000 Franklin Vapam HL 8 Probable

1 Possible At least nine employees of an industrial facility complained of symptoms after three crop circles adjacent to their building were chemigated. Symptoms included nausea, headache, and burning in eyes and throat. Two employees sought health care.

010208 October

2001 Grant Metam CLR

42% 2 Possible Two male police officers developed ocular and respiratory symptoms after parking next to potato circle that was being chem igated. Officers were parked on side on main highway for 30 minutes during a routine traffic stop. Both sought

medical care. Two other officers also had symptoms but could not be

reached for interview.

010201 November

2001 Grant Metamsodium (could not

confirm

exact product name) Probable A 19 y/o male applicator reported he had been applying a soil fumigant for several days. He developed respiratory, ocular, and dermal symptoms and sought medical treatment two days later when symptoms did not resolve.

020005 2002 Sectagon 42 Probable A 24 year old licensed applicator and chemigation specialist developed respiratory problems after monitoring a chemigation for 17 hours. He wore PPE during his shift but fell asleep in his truck 100 ft from

the field after his shift. An inversion developed and he awoke to strong fumes in the truck. Symptoms

continued for 6-8 weeks.

020236 September

2002 Franklin Sectagon 42 Suspicious A 34 year old female grape

harvester became ill while harvesting grapes. Patient claims respiratory distress may be from an application 1/4 to 1/2 mile away. A soil fumigant was being applied to a potatoes crop circle by chemigation.

030271 October

2003 Franklin Sectagon 42 Definite A 41 year old male working for a chemical distributor spilled fumigant onto his boots when transferring the product to a field tank. He rinsed

with water which activated the product and caused burns to both feet. He sought medical care for dermal symptoms.

030280 October

2003 Grant Vapam HL

Soil Fumigant 4 Possible A family, ages 63, 29, 23 yrs, and 11 mos. developed respiratory symptoms after they smelled vapors from a potato chemigation with

metam-sodium. Field was 250 ft from the house. One person sought medical care. WSDA surface wipe samples on the complainant's property were negative for deposited

residues.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 213

### 040211 April

2004 Grant Metam CLR

42% 2 Probable Two male irrigation district workers (41 and 63 y/o) developed respiratory symptoms when they walked in an area where a fumigant was being illegally dumped. They did

not seek medical treatment. WSDA tests were positive for residues of the product. Dumping was investigated by WSDA.

040223 August

2004 Walla

Walla Vapam (specific product not confirmed) Insufficient A 36 year old female went to the ER for dermal symptoms. Apparently patient had obtained the pesticide from a neighbor and was using it for weed control when she spilled it on herself. Unable to verify details with patient.

040277 October

2004 Franklin Vapam HL

Soil Fumigant Insufficient On 10/01/04, a 49 year old male delivery driver for chemicals went to the hospital for a dermal reaction on his hands. He had been handling a fumigant and wearing rubber gloves. The worker believes it is allergic reaction to the rubber gloves. Patient was discharged with treatment for

contact dermatitis.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

## 214