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.

This annual report is available online at 

www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/EnvironmentalHealth/Pesticides.aspx.

Report suspected pesticide-related illness to the Washington State Department of Health at 

1-877-485-7316 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 Tracking (PIRT) Panel Representatives_________ 88

Pesticide Incident Definition ____________________________________________ 89

Primary Agency Responsibilities 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 Classifications _________________________________________ 97

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category ________________________________ 98

Appendix C – Agency Data Summaries 101

Washington State Department 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 Enforcement Action Definitions 191

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types__________ 193

Washington State Department of Agriculture, 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 Tracking (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 report summarizing pesticide incidents 

to the legislature. This 2005 report presents individual and combined agency 

data for 2004 and a summary of the activities 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, Ecology 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 appear, the first number represents events and the 

second number represents people involved.

It is difficult to aggregate PIRT data because each agency collects a different 

type of data. For example, data from the 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. Washington State Department of Agriculture 

(WSDA) data include actual violations, cases of crop damage, complaints about 

inadequate pest control inspections, and problems with licensing of pesticide 

applicators. 

PIRT Panel Activities and 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 Rules 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 were 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 enrolled 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 support of the proposed modification to the 

General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228. The proposed changes require 

notification of the application of highly toxic or corrosive pesticides via aerial, air 

blast, outdoor fumigation 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 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-related complaints. After investigation 

it was determined that 110 (55%) involved pesticide applications. The other 

2 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 violations 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-contaminated 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 the 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 (WISHA) Services Division conducted 43 

pesticide-related safety and health inspections. 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 pesticide 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 their 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-related 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 descriptions are provided in Appendix C. 

4 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 Tracking (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 Agriculture, 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 the 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 pesticide-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 Reported 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 remediation 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 between 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 

8 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 investigating 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 reflective of human pesticide-related 

illness in the state. 

Aggregation of PIRT Data 

The overlap in pesticide-related 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 agencies. 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 because each agency collects a different 

type of data. For example, Ecology Spills Program data include information on 

actual environmental contamination and on calls from concerned neighbors 

about pesticide use that turned out to be legal 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, Ecology 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 appear, 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 datasets 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 data were discussed in depth in the 2004 

Annual Report (pages 21-26). The limitations of state comparisons of pesticiderelated illnesses are also 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. 

10 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 Reports 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 injury 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 specifically 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 assist 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-three (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 Environmental Health Directors, 2005

Yes No 

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

Did you know that suspected pesticide 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 made in instituting a system for the 

electronic transfer of reports of possible pesticide illness from WPC to DOH and 

from L&I to DOH. 

Washington Poison Center and Department of Health 

In 2004, WPC collaborated with DOH and the University of Washington Clinical 

Informatics Research Group to develop a system for automated selection of 

WPC call records that meet DOH reporting criteria. Using the University of 

Washington extraction routine and a secure file transfer mechanism, files with all 

pertinent reports are now automatically sent from WPC’s Toxicall data system to 

DOH’s Pesticide Program every 24 hours. 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 system underwent testing through March, 

14 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 detected 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 transfers 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 reports in the system database. 

Other Electronic Reporting Projects 

DOH and Washington Environmental Public Health Tracking Network are 

currently exploring the feasibility and usefulness 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 the completeness and timeliness of pesticide illness 

reporting, and b) what would be required 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 feasibility of revising questions on the data 

collection instrument to better solicit information 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 process, 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 from 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 existing 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 and policies, and to modify and expand 

current outreach efforts to address gaps 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; exposures due to inadequate personal 

protective equipment practices) 

• Identify and develop necessary changes 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 strategies will identify root causes of 

occupational accidents resulting in pesticide illness by asking why events 

occurred or conditions existed. Intervention 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. 

16 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Recommendation 4 PIRT will review the Report 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 Panel 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 requirements, 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 Minimizing Pesticide Exposure: Collateral 

Populations. Yolanda Sanchez addressed the four issues of pesticide 

drift, pesticide use reporting, decontamination, 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 inspections at agricultural sites. In Tier-I 

inspections, the business place is inspected and the employer is interviewed for 

compliance with the WPS. In Tier-II inspections, workers are also interviewed. 

Historically, inspections have revealed that 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 Supplies 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. The 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. Findings will be summarized in 

the 2006 PIRT Annual Report. 

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts 

DOH will compile, review and summarize incident data related to the tree fruit 

industry. The summary will be included with the 2006 PIRT Report. 

18 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 fruit 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 DOH as definitely, probably or possibly due to pesticide 

exposure. See Appendix B for more information 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. 

20 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Letter of Support for Modification of General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228 

The Panel wrote a letter to WSDA in support of the proposed modification to the 

General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228. The proposed changes require 

notification of the application of highly toxic or corrosive pesticides via aerial, air 

blast, 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 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, and hospitals will increase their awareness 

of highly toxic pesticides used nearby, facilitate feedback to the growers about 

the timing of planned applications, and will expedite protective actions if drift 

occurs. The Panel also noted that others could benefit from notifications 

including: adjacent homes, assisted living facilities, senior centers, preschools, 

private schools, community pools, parks, dialysis 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, from 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 decreased 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 included consumer education on the use of 

pesticides within the watershed and using 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 Agriculture’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 disposal of pesticides in Washington State. 

WSDA investigates all complaints received by the agency regarding possible 

pesticide misuse, storage, sales, and distribution. It also investigates complaints 

about applicator licensing and building structure inspections for wood destroying 

organisms. The agency inspects marketplaces, importers, manufacturers, and 

pesticide application sites for compliance with state and federal laws and 

regulations.

Complaints 

During 2004, WSDA investigated 200 complaints (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 population, the types of pest problems, and 

the nature of complaints between the eastern and western portions of the state. 

Western Washington complaints generally 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 Inspections 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 valid, substantiate the initial complaint, 

or identify additional violations. For example, an initial complaint may concern a 

possible drift, but investigation determines 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 cited for being “faulty, 

24 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
careless, and negligent” or for record keeping violations. When complaints are 

associated with numerous possible violations, the case is categorized by the 

most serious complaint. For example, a complaint involving human exposure 

caused by drift from application by an unlicensed 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 the 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 complaints 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 received 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 improper 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

Drift

Human Exposure

License

Misuse

SPI/WDO/PCO

Direct

Records

Posting

Animal Deaths

Bee Kill

Miscellanous

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 residue. WSDA referred this case to L&I. 

L&I is the lead agency to investigate employee 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 the 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 page 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 

26 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
• Commercial/industrial: Incidents by licensed operators making 

applications to offices, restaurants, homes, and landscapes 

• Pest Control Operator (PCO): Incidents involving a subset of 

commercial/ industrial operators licensed 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 where drift has occurred and no action can be 

taken, as the violator could not be proven. Sometimes the applicator has moved 

away, often out of state, and cannot be located. 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. Although WSDA licenses fewer 

commercial than private applicators, commercial applicators 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). 

28 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 issued 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 Car 5

Apples 5 Trees 4

Cherries 4 Potatoes 3

Pears 4 Bees 3

Alfalfa 2

Property 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 violation 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 issued for non-agricultural violations for 

2004. 

Table 13. WSDA Non-Agricultural 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 consistent over the years and points to 

the need for greater education of applicators, particularly in drift reduction 

techniques. Some violations may reflect the transient nature of employment or 

lack of applicator training and some, particularly for structural pest inspections, 

may reflect willful fraud. The number of preventable violations points to the 

continuing need for a strong agency enforcement 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 precautions and directions on the pesticide 

label. The following case illustrates problems that can occur when an applicator 

becomes careless. 

30 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
A dog went into seizures and required veterinary care when it ingested a granular 

insecticide. A commercial applicator had used 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 positive 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 Notice 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 transferred 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 the 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 notification 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 from 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 rating of 4 were from herbicide drift to a 

susceptible or organic crop with large financial 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 control 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 protection 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 

32 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 temperature 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 labels have warnings against 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 the 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 drift 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 complaints) and 2,4-D (14 complaints), 

were the most frequently reported active ingredients (Table 15). This is 

consistent with previous years’ numbers and probably reflects the frequency of 

use, use by unlicensed (untrained) applicators 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 are 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 Commonly 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 the determination that a violation of state 

or federal laws or rules has occurred. 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 investigation, 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 

34 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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. Cooperating 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. One case was referred to the Yakama 

Nation and one case to L&I. 

WSDA Prevention Activities 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 enhance WSDA’s farm worker education 

program. An advisory committee recommended 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 Washington 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 schools 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 laws and regulations; licenses pesticide 

applicators and conducts training on the WPS; administers a waste pesticide 

collection program; and addresses groundwater 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, triazamate, 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 regarding proposed revisions to the 

emergency exemption process. 

• Participated in educational workshops 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 registrants to develop label statements for 

several active ingredients (e.g. novaluron, mesosulfuron, zinc phosphide) 

that will reduce the potential for 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 freshwater 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 kurstaki (Btk) insecticides 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. 

36 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
• 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 newsletter 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 containers 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 Department 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 data 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 complaints 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-related 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 requirement 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 complaints 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 stabilize 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 involving 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 sample 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 pesticides, 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. 

40 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Toxics Cleanup Program: Contaminated 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 pesticide use, spills, or industrial processes. 

Ecology placed 10 pesticide-contaminated 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, Snohomish, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima 

Counties. 

Of the 10 pesticide-contaminated sites identified 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 pesticide-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-Contaminated 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 sparingly 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 aquatic 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, Endothall, 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 Association 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-native plant species. The treated areas 

are located throughout Washington State. The permits are issued by WSDA in 

partnership with the Ecology. The product 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. 

42 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 application 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 Permit 

To prepare for the arrival of West Nile virus, the number of groups treating for 

mosquitoes in Washington State rapidly 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/briquettes 11,011.81 

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (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 Agriculture are conducting a 3-year monitoring 

study to characterize pesticide concentrations 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 basin, 2,4-dichlorophenylacetic acid (2,4-D) 

was the most commonly detected pesticide. Dichlobenil was most commonly 

detected in the urban watershed. Five pesticides, azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, malathion, and 4,4'-DDE, were above the numeric component of 

various standards. A single detection of malathion (3.05 μg/L) approached the 

acute LC50 for rainbow trout (4 μg/L) in the Marion Drain. 

44 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Health 

Washington State Department of Health’s summary of pesticide-related investigations 

during 2004. 

Background 

The Department of Health (DOH) Pesticide 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 numerous 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 pesticide 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 DOH 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 electronic reporting, WPC reporting criteria 

included symptomatic illness where the person 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 health care when the symptoms worsened. 

Electronic reporting provided an opportunity 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 cases opened for investigation during these 

months. Due to limited resources, DOH discontinued 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. DOH 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. 

46 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 illness and are not observable on examination (e.g. 

headache, nausea, dizziness).

In 2004, 204 (76%) of the reported cases were determined to be definitely, 

probably, or possibly related to pesticide exposure. 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 Possible 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 artifact 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 classified as insufficient information. These 

are cases in which only one symptom was reported, or DOH was unable to 

document the pesticide involved, or the patient couldn’t be reached for an 

interview, or medical records were inconsistent with the patient’s report of illness. 

The percentage of investigations classified as insufficient information has 

remained steady for the last four years. 

In the following example, the case was 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 neurological, 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 Severity matrix for classifying signs and symptoms 

associated with pesticide cases (Appendix B). The low/mild category includes 

transient and spontaneously resolving symptoms 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 difficulty breathing are classified as low/mild 

if a health care provider did not directly observe the symptoms. The moderate 

48 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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, probable, 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 cases 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 documented 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, gastrointestinal 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 involved 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, probably or possibly related to the exposure. Two 

students reported only one symptom and were classified as insufficient information. 

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

incident and found several violations including failure to post and notify and applying a 

pesticide with powered equipment without a pesticide applicator license. 

50 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 population 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 cases defined as definite, probable, or 

possible by agricultural and non-agricultural 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 classified by DOH as definitely, probably, 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 increased 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. 

52 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 cases 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 operations. Of the 97 cases, DOH classified 

64 as definite (15), probable (21), and possible (28). In 2004, the types of 

exposure were somewhat 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.

54 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Pesticide Involved in DPP Agricultural Workers 

In 2004, there were 53 workers with illness/injury classified as definitely, 

probably, or possibly related to pesticide exposure during agricultural activities. 

Thirty-six of the 53 agricultural workers were applying or mixing/loading, 

maintaining pesticide equipment, or transporting pesticides at the time of their 

exposure. Seventeen workers were exposed to pesticide drift or residues on 

leaves while thinning, pruning, handling nursery plants, or doing other agricultural 

work. One third of the 53 cases involved exposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting 

insecticides although in almost half of these cases another pesticide was also in 

the tank mix. Azinphos-methyl was involved 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 occupational 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.

56 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Insecticides 

With the statewide implementation of cholinesterase monitoring by WISHA in 

January of 2004, there is continued interest 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, however, 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 driving 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 orchard 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 direct 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-incident 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 cholinesterase inhibitors via mixing, loading, 

applying, or repairing equipment.

Table 31 shows the number of agricultural 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. 

58 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Table 31. Illness Type* for Pesticide Handlers** by Cholinesterase 

Inhibiting Pesticides, 2000 - 2004 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Totals 

Pesticide S T S T S T S T S T 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 pesticides 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 these 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 (Table 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. Thirty-seven (26%) of the individuals were 

working at the time of exposure and 103 (74%) were not at work. 

60 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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-agricultural, 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 adults, 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 bare 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-agricultural, non-occupational DPP cases 

involved exposures to pesticide applications by non-professional applicators 

(unpaid individuals, co-workers, home-owners) (Table 34). Ten cases were 

exposed to applications by professional (paid) applicators. 

The 93 non-professional applications involved pesticide treatments of: 

• ornamental weeds, insects or snails (27) 

• insects in the home (21) 

• treatments to people or pets for fleas, 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 involved 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 unlicensed) to apply the pesticide. 

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

exposure.

62 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 parties including the: Grandview Police 

Department, 11 local fire departments, Washington State Patrol, Ecology, EPA, 

private contractors for Wilbur-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 who 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 48 8

Table 35 shows the number of people reporting symptoms; 75% of the identified 

community members with symptoms reported respiratory symptoms. Most of the 

symptoms were mild to moderate and included coughing, burning in nose or 

throat. A subset also described some type 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 responders that either reported symptoms 

or received some type of occupational health monitoring. Several firefighters, 

state patrolmen, and spill response experts 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 

64 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
detect over-exposure to the most acutely toxic pesticides that burned in the 

warehouse. All cholinesterase results were within normal limits. 

Sampling for Pesticides in Air 

Air samples for pesticide active ingredients conducted by the EPA and 

Washington State University were negative 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 Prevention 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 Transportation (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 county health departments, including Yakima 

County (health advice for people living near a pesticide warehouse fire), King 

County (review of pesticide hazards at daycares), and Thurston County 

(toxicology support for pesticide reviews required by County policy). 

DOH, with assistance from WSDA, conducted a presentation about the PIRT 

Panel and current pesticide issues to the 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 monitoring data to NIOSH for compilation of 

national pesticide illness statistics, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/. 

In 2005, DOH sent the following 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 almost total loss of corneal epithelium. 

His burn healed slowly over 14 days. 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%), tetrachlorvinphos (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 organophosphate 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 glove 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. DOH 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 develop an educational video on proper 

decontamination for pesticide handlers. The video will be completed in 2006 and 

will be available in Spanish and English. 

66 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Farm Workers and General Agricultural Community 

Staff members regularly attend and occasionally present at meetings of the 

Commission on Hispanic affairs. Our bilingual staff were guests of Spanish radio 

station KDNA in Yakima on three occasions. During the shows they spoke about 

pesticides and health issues and answered caller’s questions. Staff conducted a 

presentation at the Migrant Stream Forum 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 programs 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 Advisory 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 Program 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 using 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-authored a report in the Journal of the 

American Medical Association on pesticide illness data in schools, 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/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 website 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/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5421a2.htm. 

Partnerships 

Staff from the Pesticide Program participate on various Advisory Boards, 

Stakeholder Committees, and other organizations 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 Forests (non-voting, advisory member) 

Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration (non-voting 

member) 

68 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Labor and Industries 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ 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, hold 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 safety 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 pesticide-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 WISHA 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 program 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 the 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 written 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 investigator 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 subsequent 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 (depressions 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 periodic 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 

70 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
category I or II organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. This equates 

to an approximate 1.5% serum cholinesterase 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 tests. 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 available online. The report on the first 

year of cholinesterase monitoring can be found at 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/ChELegRpt2004Fi

nal.pdf. 

WISHA Services Division 

To enforce safety and health in the workplace, 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 situation where the “most 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 description of each of the inspections is 

provided in Appendix C. The number of pesticide-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 participation for 19 agricultural workplaces. This 

accounted for 44% of the 43 inspections in 2004. 

Of the 43 pesticide-related WISHA inspections 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. 

72 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Figure 15. WISHA Inspections by Type of Workplace, 2004 

Seeds (2) Orchard (28)

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 73
Employees were mixing, loading and applying pesticides including Lorsban 4E, Procure 50WS, 

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

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

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

minutes was available at the pesticide mixing 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 water. 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 immediately available on the vehicle or aircraft for 

emergency eye flushing. 

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

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

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

against particulate contaminants and require 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 general WISHA violations cited in 2004 

were: 

• Respirator deficiencies including no respirator program, improper storage 

or cleaning of respirators, no medical 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 pesticide 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. 

74 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 Division, 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 whether a work-related injury 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 physician finds the symptoms related to 

the exposure and there is objective evidence 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 are 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 symptoms. 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 Initially 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 loss are 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 definition above, most rejected claims were 

compensated for initial diagnostic and medical evaluations costs even if evidence 

was lacking to relate the symptoms to the work place. 

76 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 initially reported as pesticide-related could be 

accepted by L&I as work-related then DOH could investigate 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-related. Of the 74 claims that L&I 

assessed as valid work related injuries, DOH classified 53 (72%) as definitely, 

probably, or possibly related to pesticides (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 evaluation 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 spraying 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 from 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 control, retail, teaching, and others. 

Occupational exposures are described in detail in the DOH Section under 

Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness. 

78 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 information only. WPC also receives calls 

concerning rodenticides, animal exposures, and other pesticide issues. 

Human Exposure Calls 

In 2004, WPC received 2,342 calls concerning 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 identifiable 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 suspects 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 example, 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 ‘No 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 (Table 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 providers 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 and/or symptoms of pesticide 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 information for follow-up. DOH investigated 150 of 

the 305 WPC reports. After investigation, 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. 

80 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 classified 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 involving children under the age of 19 that 

DOH determined were definitely, probably or possibly related to the pesticide 

exposure. Six of the children sprayed themselves 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 human 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 potential 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 

82 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
For 2004, 270 (19%) of the reported insecticides 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 cholinergic 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 injury, 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-related 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.

84 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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, comprehensive unbiased investigation 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 Washington 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, resignation, 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, menstrual 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 Agriculture ................................................Ann Wick 

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

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

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

Department of Labor and Industries .................................Gabrielle Toutonghi 

Department of Natural Resources ....................................Karen Ripley 

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

Practicing Toxicologist ......................................................Steven Gilbert, PhD, DABT 

University of Washington ..................................................Matthew Keifer, MD, MPH 

Washington Poison Center ...............................................William O. Robertson, MD 

Washington State University.............................................Allan Felsot, PhD 

88 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 resource 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 Departments 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, transportation, storage, distribution, use, and 

disposal of pesticides and their containers. 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 pesticide applicators; 

• administers continuing education requirements 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 health 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-agency Pesticide Incident Reporting and 

Tracking Review Panel (PIRT). 

• Establish pesticide illness/exposure reporting mechanisms to be used by 

health care providers. 

• Develop a program of medical education for physicians and other health care 

providers regarding pesticide poisonings. 

90 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 the 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 least 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 through administration of the Worker Right 

to Know Law, Chapter 49.70 RCW, and administers the Workers Compensation 

Program, Title 51 RCW, through the Division of Industrial Insurance. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources 

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources administers the Forest 

Practices Rules and Regulations, WAC 222. Section 38 of WAC 222 pertains to 

forest chemicals including pesticides and fertilizers. These regulations are written to 

protect timber resources, fish, and wildlife from the misuse or misapplication of forest 

chemicals. The elements of the program that apply to pesticides involve issuing 

permits for pesticide applications in forests 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 State 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 State Department of Health (DOH) to 

respond to incidents within time periods 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 others within 30 days. Response is defined as 

a site visit, not a telephone call. 

92 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Appendix B 

Case and Severity Classifications 

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications 

NIOSH Severity Classifications 

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 93

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications 

Definite Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or environmental evidence corroborates 

exposure, 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/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 environmental evidence corroborates 

exposure, 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 exposurehealth effect relationship based upon the known toxicology of the putative agent.

Or 

1. Evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case, witness, 

application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a trained 

profession or other evidence suggesting 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, 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 exposurehealth effect relationship based upon the known toxicology of the putative agent. 

Possible Case: 1. Evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by 

case, witness, application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a 

trained profession or other evidence suggesting 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 environmental evidence corroborates 

exposure, or evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case, 

witness, application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a 

trained profession or other evidence suggesting 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 environmental evidence corroborates 

exposure, or evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case, 

witness, application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 95
trained profession or other evidence suggesting 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 due 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 toxicology of the putative agent. 

Insufficient Information: Insufficient data in the documentation of the pesticide 

exposure or insufficient data in the documentation of adverse health effects. 

Not a Case: Strong evidence that no pesticide exposure occurred or insufficient 

toxicological information is available to determine causal relationship between 

exposure and health effects. 

96 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Pesticide 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 injury: Low 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 injury: This category often involves systemic 

manifestations. Usually treatment is provided. The individual is able to return to normal 

functioning without any residual disability. Usually, 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: Considered life threatening 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 substantial 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 the 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 Category 

TABLE: Signs and symptoms by severity category (Modeled after Persson et. al.,1998 and includes SPIDER datab

ORGAN SYSTEM SEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODE 

FATAL HIGH MODERATE 

1 2 3 

Death Severe or Life-threatening Signs Pronounced or Prolonged Signs or 

Symptoms 

Mild, tran

res

Gastrointestinal System 

• Massive hemorrhage/perforation of gut •

••

••••••

Diarrhea (G14, sign only) 

Melena (GI7) Vomiting (GI6, sign only) 

AbdomAnorexConstiDiarrh

NauseVomiti

Respiratory System •

••

•••••

•••

Cyanosis (RESP 2) + Respiratory depression (RESP 7) Pulmonary edema (RESP6) Respiratory arrest

Abnormal pulmonary x-rayPleuritic chest pain/pain on deep breathing (RESP8) Respiratory depression (RESP7) Wheezing (RESP9)Dyspnea, shortness of breath (RESP4, 

sign only) 

Cough Upper (RESPDyspn(RESP

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) 

HyperaHeadaProfusDizzinAtaxia 

Periph

sympt

98 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
ORGAN SYSTEM SEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODE 

FATAL HIGH MODERATE 

 1 2 3 

Death Severe or Life-threatening Signs Pronounced or Prolonged Signs or 

Symptoms 

Mild, tran

res

Cardiovascular System 

•••

••••••

Bradycardia/ heart rate <40 for adults, < 60 infants and children, <80 neonates (CV1) Tachycardia/ heart rate>180 for adults, >190 infants/children, >200 in neonates (CV4) Cardiac arrest (CV2) 

Bradycardia / heart rate 40-50 in adults, 60-80 in infants/children, 80-90 in neonates (CV1) Tachycardia / heart rate=140-180 in adults, 160-190 infants/children, 160-200 in 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 or •

7.60-7.69) Elevated anion gap (MISC4) 

Fever 

Renal System •

•

•••

Anuria (GU2) •Renal failure

Hematuria (GU3) Oliguria (GU2)Proteinuria (GU4)

Polyur

Muscular system • •

••

•

•

Muscle rigidity (NS9) + elevated urinary myoglobin + elevated creatinine 

Fasciculations (NS6)Muscle rigidity (NS9) Muscle weakness (NS8, sign only)

Muscle 

sympt

Muscle 

Local effects on skin •

•

•••

••

Burns, second degree (involving >50% of body surface area) Burns, third degree (involving >2% of body surface area) 

Bullae (DERM1)Burns, second degree (involving <50% of body surface area) Burns, third degree (involving <2% of body surface area) 

Skin ERash, (DERMHives/

Local effects on eye • •

•

••••

Corneal ulcer/perforation Corneal abrasion (EYE3) 

Ocular burn (EYE2) 

LacrimMydria

Miosis Ocular (diagn

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

TEM SEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODE 

100

ORGAN SYS

FATAL HIGH MODERATE 

1 2 3 

Death Severe or Life-threatening Signs Pronounced or Prolonged Signs or 

Symptoms 

Mild, tran

res

Other effects •

•

FatiguMalais
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 Department of Agriculture 

Agriculture Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 103

WSDA 2004 Case Data

Benton

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Unlicensed 3/3/2004

Same Day

2Yes 

Herbicide

pendimethalin DOH, DOE NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C001 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

School 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 

proven, possible illness from vapor. Not licensed, no notification, landscape sign incomplete.

Chelan

Pesticide Application

Drift to vehicles

Private Applicator

3/13/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

Kaolin sulfur oil None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C002 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Car 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 

opposite side of road. Verbal warning given to applicator previously for same type of incident.

Chelan

Pesticide Application

Drift to property

Private Applicator

3/22/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

kaolin endosulfan chlorpyrifos None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C003 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Saw white powder on 20 x 20 area on far end of property. Daughter rides bike in area. / Applicator took numerous precautions to avoid drift (monitored, nozzle 

minimal product.

Okanogan

Non-pesticide

Storage

Private Applicator

fall 2003

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

oil None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C004 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Pesticides left out in open near their property since last fall. / Thirty gallon oil drum found plus a few drops of adjuvant in a gallon jug. No violations. Encouraged 

better storage. This was done.

Okanogan

Non-pesticide

Drift to trees

NA 6/25/1905

One Day

0No 

NANA DOT, USFS NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C005 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Trees being killed by pesticides. / No pesticides applied in area. Probable cause from deicer used on road.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Chelan

Pesticide Application

Spill

Private Applicator

4/4/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

Kaolin DOE Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C006 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

DOE employee reported pesticide product on ground. Did not see any containment. Applicator exceeded limit for non-permanent mix/load site. Must move or a

applicators to use BMPs and also possible Kaolin exemption for rule development.

Chelan

Pesticide Application

Drift to vehicles/house

Private Applicator

4/8/2005

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

formetanate hydrochloride DOH, DOE NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C007 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Applicator drifted second time on vehicles and house. / Confirmed. Person said she was ill from previous application but no complaint was filed.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Dealer Manager 4/2/2004

Same Day

3No 

Fumigant

metam sodium DOH, DOE NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C008 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Two irrigation district employees saw tanker truck dumping chemicals on canal bank. Walked area and smelled strong odor and had skin irritations. / Verified. 

Douglas

Pesticide Application

Drift to property

Private Applicator

4/13/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

sulfur None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C009 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Pickup and residence were drifted on from application to a neighboring orchard. / Samples collected were positive for sulfur. Neighbors communicating to reso

Chelan

Pesticide Application

Drift to water

Private Applicator

4/26/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide Insecticide

thiamethoxan abamectin None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C010 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Caller said applicator drifting to creek on two occasions. / Products being used within buffer requirements both times. No violations. Records in order. Applicato

direction, spraying only one side.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to apples

Private Applicator

Spring 2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C011 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Neighbor 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 inf

Okanogan

Pesticide Application

Water contamination

Commercial 5/7/2004

3 days

1No 

Herbicide herbicide

diglicolyamine 2,4-D None Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C012 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Complainant saw pesticide symptoms in weeds and thought someone had sprayed directly in water. / Weeds along seasonal stream showed symptoms. No lab 

Chelan

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Commercial 5/18/2004

Same Day

1No 

Unknown

unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C013 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to neighbor's trees drifted onto complainant's yard plants. / Spray company contacted complainant and agreed future applications would be by injec

Douglas

Pesticide Application

Drift to vehicles/people

Private Applicator

6/1/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

Azinphos methyl None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C014 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Two airblast applicators drifting over road and passing cars. / Verified. Drifted on person monitoring traffic and towards pond. Residue in all samples. Poor mon

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift on plants

Private Applicator

5/7/2004

Same Day

4No 

herbicide

MCPA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C015 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Damage to grapes after neighboring peas sprayed. / Verified, damages over $1000 but no follow up was received from the grower on damages.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Okanogan

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Private Applicator

5/18/2004

Same Day

4No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C016 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift to organic orchard from triticale application. / Verified. Wind and temperature inversions.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Commercial Jun-04

3 days

4No 

herbicide

rimsulfuron None NOC/NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C017 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Damage to alfalfa from neighbor's application to potatoes. / Verified. Also a second application to onions drifted to potatoes. Grower wanted to assess separate

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to trees

Private Applicator

Jun-04

Same Day

3No 

Herbicide

glyphosate F&W NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C018 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Willows and other vegetation along drain showing symptoms of herbicide exposure. Application to glyphosate-resistant corn moved through drainage to willows 

Grant

Referred

Human Exposure

Private Applicator

Jun-04

Same Day

3No 

referredreferred L&I Referred 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C019 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Developed rash on neck and arms after thinning apples covered in white dust. Swelling in arms. / Started investigation before noting it was an employer/employ

Grant

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Unlicensed 6/5/2004

Same Day

3No 

Herbicide

2,4-D DOH, DOE NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C020 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Plants dying after neighbor sprayed. Can smell fumes and is chemically sensitive. / Homeowner applied product over rate, dumped excess material on tree, cosensitive plants. Detects in all samples.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Chelan

Pesticide Application

Dog sick

Commercial 7/27/2004

Same Day

4No 

Insecticide

bifenthrin EPA NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C021 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Dog went into seizures after application of pesticide pellets. Applicator gave no warning about keeping dog away. / Material not distributed evenly, material in d

dog away from area.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Unlicensed 7/24/2004

Same Day

3No 

Insecticide

toxaphene methoxyclor DOH NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C022 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Employer sprayed for flies. Sought medical treatment for eye problem. / Stock spray was used around deck for flies while people on break. Felt mist, eye irritati

for residential use, drift on persons. Old cancelled product.

Okanogan

Non-pesticide

Human Exposure

Commercial 8/9/2004

Same Day

0No 

None

none DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C023 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Aerial applicator sprayed orchards around office. Spray got into ventilation system and triggered asthma attack. / The only applicator in area was spraying wax 

King

Pesticide Application

Posting

Commercial 8/12/2004

Same Day

1yes 

Insecticide

permethrin None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C024 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

No notification at child care facility that had just been sprayed for wasps. / One nest had emergency treatment by commercial company. Daycare operator did n

posting.

Snohomish

Pesticide Application

Posting

Unlicensed 8/18/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

glyphosate None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C025 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application was made to a high school with no posting signs. / School said there was posting at entrance. Will do follow-up inspection.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Chelan

Pesticide Application

License

Unlicensed 5/7/2004

19 days

1No 

unknownunknown None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C026 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Person observed with containers, sprayers and flags on lawn care trailer. Not licensed as commercial applicator. / Verified. Warning given. Still not licensed.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to trees

Commercial 8/27/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

glyphosate F&W, DOE NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C027 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to neighbor's land drifted to willow trees along wind break and damaged them. / Glyphosate residue detected in willows. Applicator will replace if n

King

Pesticide Application

Posting

Public Operator 11/17/2004

4 days

1No 

Herbicides

mscl DSHS NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# C028 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Parks Department not complying with posting regulations at daycares and summer school activities. / Complex program. Working on getting daycares into co

Grant

Pesticide Application

Posting

Commercial 3/23/2004

Same Day

1No 

Fumigant

metam-sodium None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G001 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Applicator not posting fields treated with metam-sodium. / Recent changes to label do not require posting.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to property

Unknown 6/15/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

mscl None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G002 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to control weeds drifting to neighboring property and damaging plants. / Miscellaneous pesticide residues found in garden plants but no source cou

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Adams

Pesticide Application

Drift to crop

Private Applicator

7/3/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

paraquat None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G003 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift from aerial application to corn from onions. / Verified, also over spray on water.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Commercial 7/17/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

methamidophos copper sulfur DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G004 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Aerial application to potatoes drifted to property and caused breathing problems and eye irritation as well as contaminating orchard and garden. / Findings did records and did not renew license.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to trees

Unlicensed 6/15/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

mscl None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G005 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Neighbor sprayed weed killer on vacant lot next to apple trees and damaged them. / Conflicting stories, and residues of four pesticides were detected in samp

fire blight.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Commercial 7/21/2004

Same Day

3No 

Herbicide

diquat WSU NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G006 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift from potato field sprayed with diquat. Leaves falling off fruit trees and spots on garden and ornamentals. / Verified, off label use, no records submitted.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Public Operator 7/31/2004

5 days

4No 

Herbicide herbicide

2,4-D dicamba DOE, Irrig NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G007 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Potatoes next to irrigation district showing phenoxy symptoms. Bean fields in area with symptoms also. / Verified, no ROW on PO license

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Grant

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Public Operator 7/12/2004

3 days

1No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G008 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Beans next to irrigation district showing phenoxy symptoms. / No source of residue found. Symptoms were mainly mite damage. Dropped complaint.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Commercial 5/1/2004

Same Day

3No 

Fumigant

metam sodium DOH, DOE NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G009 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Person walking through surface runoff got blister on foot. / Verified. Hole in boot. Surface runoff from metam sodium application confirmed, label violation, miss

devices, operator unlicensed.

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

License

Commercial 10/22/2004

Same Day

2No 

Fumigant

metam sodium None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# G010 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Unlicensed applicators injecting metam-sodium without supervision of commercial applicator. / Verified (same case as 9G)

Spokane

Non-pesticide

Faulty WDO

Commercial 4/17/2002

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S001 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Incomplete pest inspection. Later found termite infestation and damage. / Could not determine if termites were present at time of inspection. Some earth to woo

Report incomplete.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Unlicensed 6/7/2003

Same Day

1Yes 

Insecticide

tralomethrin DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S002 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Insect foggers used to treat apartment building suspected in death of ten-month old child. Incident occurred 10 months prior to complaint. / DOH requested invApartment owner vacated building, treated at labeled rate with foggers. Residents entered building several hours later and ventilated and then reentered severChild laid on blanket on floor of living room as it was vacuumed, found dead in morning. Medical examiner listed as Sudden Infant Death Syndrom. No violation

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Garfield

Non-pesticide

Sale

Dealer Manager spring 2004

One Day

1No 

Herbicide

glyphosate EPA NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S003 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Improper distribution of glyphosate into containers by dealer. / Repacking without proper agreements. Transferred from shuttles to containers.

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

NA spring 2004

One Day

1No 

unknownunknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S004 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Herbicide drift to vineyard. / Damage to grapes could not be linked to any application.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Unknown 4/1/2004

Same Day

2No 

unknownunknown WSU NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S005 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Herbicide drift to 300 tomato plants. / Plants had residue of MCPA and glyphosate. No source found.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Drift to property

Commercial 5/19/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S006 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Herbicide drift to fruit trees and blackberry vines in yard. Also horse pasture and horse. / Residue found off site.

Spokane

Non-pesticide

Misuse

NA 5/1/2004

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S007 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Claims damage to ornamentals by someone sneaking to her property at night and spraying herbicide on plants. / No evidence to support claim.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Spokane

Non-pesticide

Animal death

NA spring 04

Same Day

0No 

NANA Vet NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S008 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Claims cats poisoned by neighbor with rodenticides. / No evidence to support complaint. Stomach contents had barely detectable strychnine.

Whitman

Pesticide Application

License

Private Applicator

6/2/2004

One Day

1No 

Herbicide

mscl None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S009 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Pesticide applications by non-licensed individuals. / Applied to public property by WSU employee without PO license. Had PA license.

Spokane

Non-pesticide

Drift to plants

Commercial Spring 04

Same Day

0No 

NANA WSU NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S010 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Commercial herbicide application adjacent to arborvitae damaged 125 plants. / No evidence application injured plants. Probably cultural/bacterial disease.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Public Operator 6/8/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

malathion DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S011 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Human exposure to mosquito application done by the city. / Exposure not confirmed. Product found off target, used contrary to label, not licensed for mosquito 

Lincoln

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Commercial Mar-04

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

sulfosufuron None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S012 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Damage to ornamental plants from aerial application to adjoining grain field. / No indication of drift. Symptoms consistent with disease, insects and climatic con

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Adams

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Private Applicator

Apr-04

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S013 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Damaged ornamentals from adjacent ground-rig application. / No residue, natural growth pattern.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Private Applicator

4/22/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

bromoxinil dicamba None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S014 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift from wheat to lentils. / No damage symptoms, no residue. Complaint withdrawn.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Unlicensed 5/1/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S015 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Making herbicide applications to mobile home park without posting, notification, license. Child has asthma and concerned about exposure. / No requirement for 

home manager about notification. Sent pesticide sensitive registration forms. No determination that applications were made.

Stevens

Non-pesticide

Distribution

Dealer Manager 6/8/2004

Same Day

1No 

NANA None Warning Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S016 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Distribution of pesticides and fertilizers not registered in state. / Feed grade copper sulfate rebagged in small package as convenience. Sold as "fertilizer". War

recommending off label use of a copper sulfate fungicide.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Direct application

NA 6/15/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

glyphosate None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S017 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Has large dead spot in lawn and two dead ornamental plants. Has had commercial pesticide applications and a mowing service. / Glyphosate residue found anbe determined.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Lincoln

Non-pesticide

Drift to plants

NA 6/1/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S018 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift from application to weeds at commercial grain elevator damaging trees and shrubs in yard. / No evidence of drift. Possibly cultural problem, low soil fertility

Lincoln

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Commercial 6/16/2004

Same Day

4No 

Herbicide Herbicide

trhifensulfuron rimsulfuron None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S019 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift to 135 acres of peas being grown for seed. / Verified. Damage $47K.

Lincoln

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Commercial 6/1/2004

Same Day

3No 

Herbicide

unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S020 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Aerial herbicide drift to garlic. / Garlic field killed by aerial application. Grower reached settlement with applicator. Withdrew complaint.

Adams

unknown

Drift to crops

Unknown Spring 2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S021 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged ROW drift of herbicide to winter wheat. / Damage to wheat seen along road but no cause determined. No residues detected.

Whitman

unknown

Drift to crops

Unknown summer 2004

Four days

1No 

unknownunknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S022 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged drift to organic vegetables. / Damage to grape vines could not be linked to any pesticide applications.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Adams

unknown

Drift to crops

Unknown 6/26/1905

Same Day

1No 

unknownunknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S023 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged drift to seed peas from application to wheat. / No evidence of drift. Multiple applications made in area.

Spokane

NA

Drift to trees

NA Spring 2004

Same Day

0No 

Herbicide

clopyralid None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S024 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Herbicide injury to trees around nursing home. / Symptoms appear to be root uptake, not drift. Clopyralid detected in leaf samples, No source determined.

Adams

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Public Operator 6/28/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S025 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged drift of herbicides onto potato field. / Verified. Probably came from irrigation district application. No complaint, just wants employees advised.

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Drift to trees

Public Operator 4/15/2004

Same Day

3No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate picloram None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S026 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

ROW application by country damaged locust trees on his property. / Glyphosate residue found, no source determined. Off label use of picloram (near trees).

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Drift to trees

Commercial 9/1/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

glyphosate None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S027 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged pesticide drift during windy conditions. / Verified. Residue in trees.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Direct application

Commercial 7/16/2003

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

glyphosate None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S028 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application made by commercial lawn care company damaged lilacs growing along edge of treatment area. / No symptoms, occurred in 2003, no complaint un

Spokane

Pesticide Application

Direct application

Unlicensed 6/15/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

diuron bromacil None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S029 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to driveway made by friend damaged trees. / Complaint withdrawn.

Spokane

Non-pesticide

Disposal

Commercial 12/9/2004

Same Day

0No 

NANA DOE NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# S030 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Improper container and equipment rinsing. / Rinsing of muddy fertilizer truck on pad. No violations. Check of records showed improper application of herbicide 

King

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Commercial 1/4/2004

Same Day

2No 

Fumigant

methyl bromide None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T001 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges commercial applicator is fumigating truck trailers in a manner that endangers the public. / Verified. Applicator fumigating trailer in traffic area contrary to 

King

Pesticide Application

Animal death

Commercial 1/23/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

carbaryl None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T002 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Commercial 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 deat

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Skagit

Non-pesticide

Faulty SPI, license

Commercial Consultant

4/11/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T003 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty Structural Pest inspection Report and unlicensed inspector. / Failed to report beetles and rot. Did not diagram. Was licensed.

King

Non-pesticide

License fraud

Commercial 2/3/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T004 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Operator provided a document to prove he had taken and passed the license exam. Document was falsified. / Verified. Also false billings for applications and fa

without a license.

King

Non-pesticide

Records, license

Commercial 2/11/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T005 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Business inspection showed failure to complete and retain records application records and WDO reports. Power apparatus was not licensed.

King

Non-pesticide

Records, license

Commercial 2/11/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T006 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Business inspection showed failure to make or keep WDO reports, provide records on approved forms, and failure to keep complete and accurate records.

Kitsap

NA

Faulty SPI and report

SPI 6/16/2003

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T007 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty structural pest inspection and report. / Verified. Failed to report rot and conducive conditions, did not diagram.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Skagit

NA

Report

SPI 4/11/2002

Five days

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T008 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Did not provide WDO report as requested for previous complaint.

King

NA

Report

SPI 2/27/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T009 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Did not provide report as requested for previous complaint.

Grays Harbor

Non-pesticide

Misuse

Unlicensed year 2003

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T010 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Said neighbor using a pesticide to kill his yard. / Neighbor-neighbor dispute. Alleged application occurred a year ago. Could not determine cause of lawn death

pesticides.

King

Pesticide Application

Direct application

Commercial 3/22/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

fipronil None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T011 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

PCO treated the wrong house. / Mix-up on house numbers. No evidence who had given the wrong number.

Clark

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 2/25/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T012 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

No longer employed with company, therefore insurance is invalid, and company has no license. Advertising as inspector without license. / Verified

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

King

Non-pesticide

Faulty SPI and license

Unlicensed 12/17/2003

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T013 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI and not licensed. / Verified. Failed to report rot, debris, earth to wood. Not properly licensed.

Pierce

Non-pesticide

Faulty SPI and report

SPI 5/12/2003

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T014 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI and report. / Not verified. Inspection was thorough and accurate. No violations.

Kitsap

Non-pesticide

Faulty SPI and report

SPI 12/10/2003

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T015 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to report rot, insects and debris. No diagram.

King

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 3/8/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T016 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Advertising as a SPI without a license. / Verified.

King

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 3/8/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T017 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Advertising as a SPI without a license. / Verified.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Thurston

Non-pesticide

No backflow device

Unlicensed 2/26/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T018 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Follow up inspection at lumber mill from previous secondary containment inspection. Did not have backflow device, did not inspect systems, no spill response p

Snohomish

Non-pesticide

No backflow device

Unlicensed 2/27/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T019 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Follow up inspection at lumber mill from previous secondary containment inspection. Did not have backflow device, did not inspect systems, no spill response p

Pierce

Non-pesticide

No backflow device

Unlicensed 2/27/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T020 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Follow up inspection at lumber mill from previous secondary containment inspection. Did not have backflow device, did not inspect systems, no spill response p

Thurston

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Unlicensed 4/21/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate oxyfluorfen None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T021 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to Christmas trees damaged ornamental hedge. / No evidence application damaged trees. Applicator used product contrary to label, did not keep re

handler, did not post handler information.

King

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Unlicensed 3/15/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

glyphosate None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T022 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to neighbor's lawn drifted to grass and bamboo. / Verified. Damage minor.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Grays Harbor

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Commercial 4/29/2004

Same Day

2Yes 

Insecticide

cyfluthrin DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T023 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to apartment left residue on railing. Father got wet hand from railing and picked up child. Taken to health center, worried about exposure. No sympt

treatment was crack and crevice. PPE used, no posting required. No evidence on complaint. NOC on records and not taking precautions to keep children from 

Clark

Non-pesticide

Misuse

Residential 3/15/2004

Same Day

0No 

Herbicide

unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T024 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Said neighbor sprayed her plants with herbicide. / No evidence to support complaint.

Snohomish

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 4/7/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T025 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Dealer inspection - no dealer endorsement on license, no current dealer manager, improper records for sales, offered for sale product not registered as pestici

Thurston

Pesticide Application

License/Drift

Unlicensed 4/27/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

carbaryl None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T026 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to trees for tent caterpillars drifted across road. / Verified. Also company and employee were not licensed.

Pierce

Pesticide Application

Ineffective product

Unlicensed 3/27/2004

6 days

1No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T027 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Company allegedly sold customer a product that did not work/ Purchased 2,4-D product. Wanted all vegetation gone. Should have purchased glyphosate.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Snohomish

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 4/8/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T028 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Dealer inspection - no dealer manager present, no complete sales records, improper storage of items for sale and offered non-registered pesticides.

Thurston

Non-pesticide

Direct application

Unlicensed unknown

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T029 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Neighbor damaged tree. / New asphalt probably cut off water to tree. Ground was compacted to lay asphalt. Also frost and insect damage.

King

Pesticide Application

Notification

Commercial 5/10/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

cyfluthrin None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T030 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

On pesticide sensitive list. Was not notified. No health symptoms. / Commercial company spraying for tent caterpillars. Miscommunication on who was to notify 

Clark

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 4/14/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T031 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Unlicensed structural pest inspector. / Verified. Also no insurance and no inspection number on report.

Snohomish

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 4/8/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T032 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Dealer inspection - dealer manager's license not needed. No proper sales records, offered for sale non registered pesticides, labels not intact, poor housekeep

outside of containers.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Snohomish

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 4/9/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T033 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Dealer inspection - dealer manager's license not current, no dealer endorsement, no proper sales records, offered for sale non registered pesticides.

King

Non-pesticide

Faulty SPI & report

SPI 1/24/2003

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T034 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified, failed to note insects, rot and earth to wood. No diagrams.

Grays Harbor

Non-pesticide

Faulty SPI & report

SPI 12/31/2002

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T035 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI and report . / Verified. Failed to note beetles, rot and earth to wood contact. No diagrams.

Jefferson

Non-pesticide

Misuse

NA 2/1/2004

One Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T036 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges neighbor is killing his tree because it blocked the view. / No evidence of pesticides. Suspect tree's decline is due to stress.

Pierce

Non-pesticide

Faulty SPI & report

SPI 4/16/2004

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T037 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged faulty SPI and report. / Unsubstantiated. Inspection was complete and accurate.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Grays Harbor

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Commercial 6/2/2004

Same Day

4No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate sulfometuron methyl DOT, DOE NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T038 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Commercial applicator applying to DOT lands without permission. Applying to vegetation in standing water in a wetland. / Verified Damage to DOT vegetation $

endorsements, did not keep complete and accurate records.

Snohomish

Pesticide Application

Direct application

Commercial 5/13/2004

One Day

1No 

Insecticide Insecticide

pyrethrin thiophanate methyl WSU NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T039 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Commercial spray company damaged her vegetation. / No evidence spray damaged vegetation. Glyphosate trace found but could not determine source.

King

Non-pesticide

License

Commercial 12/4/2003

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T040 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Unlicensed SPI, no control number, advertising without valid license. / Verified. Also insurance problems.

King

Non-pesticide

Records

Commercial 6/7/2004

Same Day

2No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T041 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Did not provide records to WSDA as requested from previous WDO investigation.

King

Non-pesticide

Misuse

Unlicensed 6/8/2004

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T042 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges that tree was sprayed without permission of owner. / Elm tree was dying from Dutch Elm Disease. No pesticides involved.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

King

Non-pesticide

License

Unlicensed 6/28/2004

Same Day

1No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T043 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Advertising as SPI without a valid license. / Verified

King

Non-pesticide

Misuse

NA 6/1/2004

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T044 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

County 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

Kitsap

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Commercial 6/3/2004

6 days

2No 

Rodenticide Rodenticide

difethilone bromobiphenyl None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T045 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Rodenticide applied around home in improper manner. / Verified. Not in secure bait box. Records inadequate.

Skagit

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Private Applicator

6/3/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

clomazone Organic Program NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T046 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift to organic crop from neighbor's application. / No residue, no symptoms.

King

Pesticide Application

Misuse/License

Unlicensed 7/12/2004

One Day

2No 

Herbicide

2,4-D triclopyr None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T047 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges that an unlicensed applicator sprayed some brush on his property. / Verified. Homeowner Association asked him to spray . The lot was thought to be v

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Pierce

Non-pesticide

Records/Storage

Commercial 7/1/2004

Same Day

1No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T048 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Inspection revealed faulty application records and storage. / Verified.

Thurston

Pesticide Application

Apparatus plate

Commercial 7/19/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

triclopyr DOE NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T049 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to water. Applicator failed to display apparatus plate on boat. / Application made according to label, all other regs followed. On one occasion, applic

small boat.

Thurston

NA

Distribution

Unlicensed 7/19/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

triclopyr None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T050 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Sticker with establishment number obscured EPA registration number (misbranded). Also needed a Commercial Consultant license and Dealer License.

Grays Harbor

Pesticide Application

Water Contamination

Private Applicator

7/8/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate sulfometuron methyl DNR NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T051 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Herbicide application to forest lands went into water. / Verified. Also incomplete records.

Island

Pesticide Application

Labeled Containers

Public Operator 7/20/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate imazapyr None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T052 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Did not label containers of pesticide mixture used for Spartina control application and reused pesticide containers to transport pesticide mixture.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Island

Pesticide Application

Labeled Containers

Public Operator 7/20/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate imazapyr None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T053 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Did not label containers of pesticide mixture with appropriate contents and cautions, used for Spartina control application.

Island

Pesticide Application

Labeled Containers

Public Operator 7/20/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate imazapyr None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T054 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Did not label containers of pesticide mixture used for Spartina control application.

King

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Unlicensed 8/9/2004

One Day

1No 

Fungicide

copper napth. DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T055 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Neighbor ill after roof treatment application. / Odor problem only. Applicator unlicensed.

King

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Unlicensed 4/15/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

dicamba None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T056 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Hedge died. Alleges neighbor killed it with herbicide. / Dicamba residue found in foliage but no evidence to show source.

King

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Unlicensed 4/15/2004

6 days

1No 

Herbicide Herbicide

2,4-D dicamba None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T057 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Said neighboring business killed vegetation on his property. / Residue of 2,4-d and dicamba found. Roofing company denied using any herbicides. No source d

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

King

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure

Unlicensed 6/14/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

permethrin None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T058 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application in a closet for ants caused health problems. / Permethrin used by unlicensed contractor to control ants. No evidence of misuse, odor or residue. Po

required Commercial Applicator license for that application.

Pierce

Non-pesticide

Direct application

Commercial 6/15/2004

One Day

0No 

nonenone None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T059 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges commercial applicator killed her willow trees. / Trees girdled from use of string trimmer. No pesticides involved.

King

Pesticide Application

Notification

Commercial 7/22/2004

Same Day

1No 

NANA None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T060 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges commercial applicator did not notify her about application next to residence, is on the pesticide sensitive register. / Verified.

Grays Harbor

NA

Faulty SPI & report

SPI 6/16/2004

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T061 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI and report. / Failed to report rot fungus, termites, beetles and earth to wood contact. Did not diagram.

Pierce

Non-Pesticide Application

Misuse

NA 8/22/2004

Same Day

0No 

NA

na None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T062 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges neighbors poisoned her maple tree. / Holes in tree due to woodpecker. Mold caused by aphids. No pesticide use.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Lewis

NA

Human Exposure

NA 10/20/2004

Same Day

0No 

NA

na None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T063 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Strong 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 prob

Clark

Non-Pesticide Application

Faulty SPI & report

SPI 6/8/2004

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T064 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI & report. / Failed to report ants, termites, fungus, debris and moisture.

King

Pesticide Application

Plant damage

Commercial 10/7/2005

Same Day

1No 

unknownunknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T065 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Commercial applicator treating neighbor's property damaged her property. Numerous allegations of harm to plants, shoes, batteries, car hoses etc. / No evide

Pierce

NA

Cat death

NA 10/27/2005

One Day

0No 

nonenone None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T066 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges rodent bait distributed in a manner that exposed domestic pets. Cat died from rodent bait. / Not substantiated. Any rodent bait placed was over two yea

Building deteriorating and full of garbage. No bait seen. Cause of cat's death undetermined.

Pierce

NA

License, containers

Unlicensed 10/11/2004

Same Day

1No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T067 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Ag Use inspection found creosote oil without establishment number, and is not a registered product in WA. Did not have pesticide dealer license.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Clark

Non-Pesticide Application

Faulty pest inspection

SPI 4/6/2004

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T068 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty Structural Pest inspection and Report. / Failed to report fungus, earth to wood contact, debris .

Clallam

Non-Pesticide Application

License

Unlicensed 11/1/2001

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T069 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Unlicensed Structural Pest inspector. Not licensed to do WDO inspections, did not put inspection control number on reports. Failed to produce proof of insuran

Clallam

NA

Report

Unlicensed 11/29/2004

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T070 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Did not provide WDO report for inspection done on case 69T.

Snohomish

Non-Pesticide Application

Faulty SPI & report

SPI 1/22/2004

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T071 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Faulty SPI & WDO report. / Failed to report fungus, ants, earth to wood contact and moisture. Did not provide license number and inspection control number on 

King

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Commercial 10/20/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

cyfluthrin None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T072 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Sprayed her blueberries without permission during commercial application at neighbors. / Property line dispute. Was given OK to spray by other neighbor. Law

blueberries.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Kitsap

NA

Records

Unlicensed 10/14/2004

Same Day

1No 

unknownunknown None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T073 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Failed to provide application records to WSDA on request. / Company did not provide evidence of license during condominium bid process. Complaint to WSDA

records to WSDA.

Out of State

NA

License

Unlicensed 4/1/2004

Same Day

1No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T074 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Inspection of a wood preservative producer. Found adjuvant not registered in state. Company distributing is not licensed as WA dealer.

Thurston

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Unlicensed 9/9/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

permethrin DOH Verbal Warning 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T075 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Employee used fogger labeled for homes and apartments in restaurant. / Verified. No reports of any illness or problems (DOH referral). Warned not to use this 

Clallam

NA

Report

SPI 10/30/2003

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T076 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Failed to provide WDO report to WSDA upon request. / Verified.

Pierce

NA

Registration, license

Unlicensed 11/1/2004

Same Day

0No 

NA

na EPA NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T077 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Inspection at wood treating plant found unregistered adjuvant. Distributor was not licensed. / Distributor sold Boric Acid and had no knowledge of its use as pes

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Snohomish

NA

License

Unlicensed 5/31/2000

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T078 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Unlicensed structural pest inspector. / Inspection done in 2000 without proper license. Now has license.

Pierce

NA

License

Unlicensed 11/30/2004

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T079 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Unlicensed structural pest inspector. / Not licensed to do WDO inspections. Failed to report conditions. No insurance.

Whatcom

NA

Misuse of CCA wood

NA 12/3/2004

Same Day

1No 

NA

na EPA NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# T080 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Use of CCA treated wood in construction site. / Wood used was pre 2004 CCA treated. No violation.

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

License

Unlicensed 2/22/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

sulfosulfuron None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y001 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Aerial application of a pesticide made by an unlicensed person working for an application business whose owner had not renewed the commercial applicator lic

Benton

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Unlicensed 3/14/2004

Same Day

3No 

Insecticide Insecticide

oil chlorpyrifos DOH NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y002 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Neighbor sprayed cherries and drifted to person, possibly water. Felt mist, became nauseous and skin burned. / Residue detected outside orchard but not on c

Person had showered.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Benton

Pesticide Application

Drift - school playground

Private Applicator

3/17/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

Chlorpyrifos Esfenvalerate Oil None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y003 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Orchard spray drifted to school playground. No reports of anyone exposed at this time. / Spraying in high wind. One grass sample tested positive. Other samp

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Private Applicator

3/20/2004

Same Day

3No 

Insecticide

chlorpyrifos DOH NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y004 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Neighbor sprayed orchard, and complainant had guest who felt ill after being exposed to drift. / Residues detected, also records incomplete and infractor mad

label. Label violation.

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Private Applicator

3/19/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

esfenvalerate sulfur oil None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y005 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to pears drifted across alfalfa and pasture. / Residue found 100 feet into other property. Wind direction and speed favored drift. Additional chemica

as residue.

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Private Applicator

3/22/2004

Same Day

3No 

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

chlorpyrifos oil endosulfan DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y006 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to apples drifted on a person and property. Felt mist and burning on skin and in nose. / Verified. Also record keeping violations.

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Private Applicator

3/24/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide Insecticide

calcium polysulfide oil None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y007 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application of lime sulfur and oil to pears drifted on person, dogs and trailer. / No health symptoms. Shirt tested positive of sulfur. Records incomplete.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Unknown 3/25/2004

Same Day

1No 

UnknownUnknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y008 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to orchard drifted to neighboring business. Employee exposed. / Employee withdrew complaint and had employer handle the situation with the own

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Commercial 3/29/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide Herbicide

MCPA clodinafop-propargyl DOH, FAA NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y009 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Person exposed to aerial application to wheat while jogging. / Verified. Records deficient. Plane was an unlicensed apparatus. Not in full compliance with FAA 

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Drift to property

Private Applicator

4/2/2004

Same Day

2No 

Fungicide Insecticide

fenarimol chlorpyrifos None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y010 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Spraying in wind and drifted on house and lawn. / Verified.

Benton

Pesticide Application

Drift to property

Private Applicator

4/8/2004

Same Day

1No 

Insecticide

sulfur None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y011 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged neighbor across road was spraying apples in wind and drifting to property. / No sulfur was detected off target. No violations noted.

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Drift to property

Commercial 4/12/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

dimethoate None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y012 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to residence. Application to eaves dropped on picnic table, chairs, barbeque, hot tub and shoes. / Verified. Residue found. Did not have PCO Certif

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Benton

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Unknown 4/1/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

sulfonylurea None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y013 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Cherries have sulfonylurea symptoms. / Cherries appeared to have been exposed to sulfonylurea two to three weeks earlier. Unknown source

Yakima

NA

License

Unlicensed year 2004

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y014 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Company employees reporting truck with spray tanks doing lawn care jobs. Alleges they are not licensed. No record of company in WSDA files. / Not pesticide 

fires.

Benton

Pesticide Application

Bee Kill

Private Applicator

4/19/2004

Same Day

3No 

Fungicide

triflumizole None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y015 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Claims to have smelled chemical odor, and next evening saw their bees dying, 25 hives affected. / Residues found in dead bees. Applied to blooming plants. hours. Records violations.

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Direct application

Unlicensed 4/23/04

Same Day

1No 

UnknownUnknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y016 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleges someone made an herbicide application to her property without permission. / Alleged application was on easement. No further investigation conducted

Kittitas

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Commercial 4/29/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

2,4-D None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y017 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Herbicide application to wheat drifted to pears, possibly apples. / Residue found on pears but not apples.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Franklin

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Unknown May-04

Same Day

1Yes 

UnknownUnknown DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y018 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleging that drift from application causing irritated eyes and throats to complainant and daughter. / Probably odor from chemigation application to potatoes. Ne

Product has significant odor. No evidence of drift.

Benton

unknown

Drift to ornamentals

Unknown May-04

Same Day

2No 

UnknownUnknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y019 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Trees and ornamentals in yard dying. Alleges it is due to drift. / Symptoms typical of phenoxy herbicides. Not due to drift but carryover, direct application or clos

chemicals used. Can not determine source.

Franklin

Pesticide Application

Drift to Crops

Commercial Apr-04

18 days

1No 

Herbicide

Unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y020 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Roadside spraying damaged wheat. / Wheat was growing in Right-of-Way. County working with growers to resolve. Complaint dropped.

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Commercial May 15-22, 2004

One day

3No 

Herbicide

glyphosate None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y021 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Neighbor applying herbicide to weeds, drifted on grapes. / Verified. Drift or direct spray. Repeat offense.

Benton

unknown

Drift to crops

Unknown Spring 2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

Unknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y022 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Fruit and leaves have spots. / Symptoms consistent with aerial drift or volatilization of herbicides. Unknown source.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Benton

Pesticide Application

Drift to vineyard

Commercial May-04

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

phenoxy None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y023 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Phenoxy symptoms in vineyard. / Verified, herbicide application made next to vineyard.

Yakima

NA

Drift to property

Private Applicator

6/4/2004

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y024 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to apples drifted on his property. / Applied potassium salt. Not a pesticide.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Contaminated product

Unknown May-04

Same Day

3No 

NA

None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y025 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Believes misbranded or contaminated product damaged grass on ROW. / Not verified.

Benton

unknown

Drift to crops

Unknown 6/11/2004

3 days

3No 

UnknownUnknown None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y026 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Asparagus on packing line had red marks and speckling. / Symptoms of carfentrazone-ethyl herbicide. Source unknown. Culling loss about $10,000.

Franklin

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants

Public Operator 5/20/2004

Same Day

3No 

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide

dicamba 2,4-D glyphosate Irrigation District NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y027 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application made to ditch bank and across road drifted to nearby home and damaged trees and ornamentals. / Verified. Also records incomplete.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Klickitat

Non-Pesticide

Drift to tree

NA 5/25/2004

Same Day

0No 

NA

na None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y028 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Cherry tree with brown leaves. Thought to be caused by ROW spray. / Nutrition and drainage problems, not pesticide related. Last application on ROW was 20

Klickitat

none

Drift to cherries

NA 6/25/2004

Same Day

0No 

NA

na None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y029 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Yellow and brown cherry leaves. / Not pesticide related. Nutrition and drainage problems, plus the application of calcium nitrate.

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Drift to plants, animals

Commercial 6/19/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

malathion None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y030 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application made to cherries drifted on pears, goats and dogs. / Verified. Also records incomplete, sale to unlicensed person, off label use . NOCs also issued.

Benton

Pesticide Application

Drift to vehicle

Private Applicator

6/23/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide Insecticide

Imidacloprid oil None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y031 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drifted on car from application to cherry orchard. Windows rolled up and no human exposure claimed. / Verified. Spots on vehicle and residue detected.

Benton

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Private Applicator

6/29/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide Herbicide

MCPA Bromoxynil None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y032 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Spraying phenoxy herbicides in temperatures above 85F. / Verified.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Direct application

Public Operator 7/16/2004

Two days

2No 

Herbicide

glyphosate None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y033 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Alleged the county sprayed mail and mailbox. Concerned about exposure. / Verified, residue detected.

Walla Walla

Non-Pesticide

Faulty WDO

SPI 11/19/2001

Same Day

0No 

NANA None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y034 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Homeowner allegedly missed WDOs during inspection 3 years ago, resulting in bad inspection report now. Is selling house. / Complainant moved and did not 

was terminated.

Benton

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Unknown 7/26/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

fenpropathrin FDA/Oregon NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y035 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

FDA found fenpropathrin on currents in OR. No tolerance for currents. Grower said WSU recommended. / Section 18 not requested as producer thought full re

were placed in freezer pending tolerance level set by FDA.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Bee Kill

Commercial 7/24/2004

Same Day

4No 

Insecticide Insecticide

methamidophos propargite None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y036 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Leaf cutter bee kill. / Verified. Applied to alfalfa and drifted to leaf cutter bees pollinating field. Loss of $50K in alfalfa seed, $10K bees.

Grant

Pesticide Application

Direct to tree

Commercial 7/29/2004

Same Day

3No 

Herbicide

mscl None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y037 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Pine or Fir tree dying on lawn. Suspect Commercial application made to lawn. / At least two companies made applications and the homeowner also applied pe

infestation was discovered in the tree. Recordkeeping and other violations were found.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Human Exposure 

Private Applicator

8/6/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

Azinphos methyl B.t. Imidacloprid DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y038 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Pesticide application made to orchard drifted onto property. He felt sick and had headache. / Residues found from ingredients on orchard. Records also defici

Walla Walla

Unknown

Misuse

Unknown 8/19/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

metribuzin Sheriff NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y039 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Sheriff's office requested analysis of unknown substance placed around tree. Tree blocks view from neighbor. / Substance identified as an herbicide. Cleaned 

sheriff's office.

Benton

Pesticide Application

Drift to fish

Public Operator Check 8/17/2003

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

pyrethrins None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y040 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Mosquito application drifted to fish in holding tanks and killed 13 Koi about 24" long. / Water and fish disposed of, so unable to sample.

Columbia

Pesticide Application

Drift to trees

Commercial 8/4/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate 2,4-D None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y041 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Aerial application to summer fallow drifted to trees and damaged. / Foliage samples tested positive. Applicator and homeowner came to agreement and homeo

Benton

Pesticide Application

Animal exposure

Commercial 8/20/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

bifenthrin None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y042 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Application to yard made cat ill. Vet said symptoms typical of pesticide poisoning. / No evidence to prove cat sick due to pesticides. Licensing and label violatio

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Yakima

Pesticide Application

Drift to crops

Unknown 9/11/2004

Same Day

1No 

UnknownUnknown Yakama Nation Referred 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y043 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift to organic cherry orchard from apple orchard spray. / Case referred to Yakama Nation at request of EPA.

Franklin

Pesticide Application

Direct application

Commercial 9/21/2004

Same Day

2No 

Insecticide

dithiocarbamate None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y044 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

End gun oversprayed road and struck truck. Unattended fumigant application. Sprayed into pond. No human exposure claimed. / Verified. No damage. No exp

Walla Walla

NA

Misuse

Unknown 9/29/2004

Same Day

0No 

NA

na Sheriff NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y045 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Herbicide 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 residu

Yakima

Non-Pesticide

Faulty WDO

SPI 10/1/2004

Same Day

2No 

NA

na None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y046 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

WDO inspection did not identify pests. / Verified. Evidence of termite damage. Incomplete records.

Franklin

Pesticide Application

Animal exposure

Private Applicator

10/9/2004

Same Day

1No 

Fumigant

vapam None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y047 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Circle 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

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
WSDA 2004 Case Data

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

Drift on trees

Commercial in 2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicides

mscl WSU NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y048 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Trees at Port have herbicide symptoms. Nearby grapes and other plants do not. / Foliage tested positive for herbicides used by commercial applicator near tre

Yakima

NA

Misuse

Unknown 5/1/2004

Same Day

1No 

Herbicide

boron chlorine None NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y049 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Claims 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 su

Snohomish

Pesticide Application

Misuse

Unlicensed 2003&2004

23 days

2No 

Fumigant

formic acid None NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y050 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Used formic acid, unregistered pesticide, on bee colonies for mite control in 2003 and 2004. Sold to second person. / Verified.

Columbia

Non-Pesticide

Disposal

Unknown 11/9/2004

Same Day

3No 

unknownunknown None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y051 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Two county employees complained of headaches after starting to clear out culvert area. Nearby land owner alleged to have burn pit and dumped chemicals. / 

plastic containers. Samples positive for all pesticides reportedly used by farmer in 2004.

Walla Walla

Pesticide Application

Drift on car

Commercial 12/12/2004

Same Day

2No 

Herbicide

sulfosulfuron None NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

Designation

Nature of Case

License Date:

Response time

Case# Y052 Severity

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2004

Drift on car from aerial application to winter wheat. / Verified. Pesticide application records were incomplete.

 NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Notice of Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted 

September 30, 2005 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection
Ecology Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 145

Agency Data Summary 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program 

Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity 

Source Cause Impact Action 

Adams Othello, 541219 

6/3/04, 6/3/04 Soil Pesticide, 90 gallons Farm/agriculture Accident – other Soil contamination Telephone Technical assistance 

Benton Hanford, 539395 

3/2/04, 3/2/04 Soil Herbicide, 50 gallons Commercial Unknown Soil contamination No follow-up required 

Prosser, 539561 

3/3/04, 3/3/04 

RoadwayPaved Herbicide, 15 gallons Commercial Human factor- unknown Soil contamination Field response- Investigation 

Prosser, 539749 

3/14/04, 3/22/04 

Surface water-fresh, Spring 

Pesticide Farm/agriculture

Human factorimproper procedure 

Water pollution Referral 

Ecology Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity 

Source Cause Impact Action 

Chelan Wenatchee, 542626 

4/13/04, 6/21/04 Soil Pesticide Commercial Unknown Soil contamination TCP- Determination 

Chelan, 546811 

12/28/04, 12/28/04 Soil Pesticide Commercial Human factor- other Soil contamination TCP- Voluntary compliance 

Clark Battleground, 539920 

3/29/04, 3/29/04 

Storm drain pipe 

Pesticide, 2 gallons Motor vehicle Accident – other Water pollution Telephone 

Douglas East Wenatchee, 540177 

4/7/04, 4/7/04 

Buildingstructure Pesticide, 3 drums Domestic Unknown Potential pollution- release Telephone 

Ferry Inchelium, 541479 

6/14/04, 6/14/04 

Surface water-fresh Herbicide Commercial

Human factorintentional - No follow-up required 

148 Ecology Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity 

Source Cause Impact Action 

Grant Moses Lake, 539501 

3/9/04, 3/9/04 

RoadwayPaved Herbicide, 200 gallons Industrial facility Leaking drum- container - Telephone- Technical assistance 

Grays Harbor Moclips, 540514 

4/30/04, 4/30/04 Air Pesticide Commercial Improper procedure Human No follow-up required 

Aberdeen, 541347 

5/8/04, 6/9/04 

RoadwayPaved Insecticide, 20 gallons Commercial Accident- traffic Soil contamination Telephone 

King Kent, 538447 

1/16/04, 1/16/04 Other Pesticide Illegal dump site Dumping Human Telephone 

Pierce Eatonville, 544180 

10/20/04, 10/20/04 Soil Herbicide Public agency Dumping Soil contamination No follow-up required 

Snohomish Lynnwood, 540218 

4/10/04, 4/10/04 

Otherwetland Herbicide, 3 gallons Commercial Unknown Potential pollution- release Telephone 

Ecology Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity 

Source Cause Impact Action 

Lake Roesiger, 540340 

4/18/04, 4/18/04 

Surface water-fresh, Lake Roesiger 

Herbicide, 1 pound Unknown 

Human factorintentional Water pollution 

Field responseTechnical assistance 

Everett, 541506 

6/16/04, 6/16/04 Soil Herbicide, 180 gallons Equipment failure Equipment failure Soil contamination Telephone 

Lake Stevens, 542006 

7/7/04, 7/8/04 Soil Herbicide, 100 gallons Equipment failure Equipment failure Soil contamination Telephone

Marysville, 545501 

8/18/04, 12/27/04 Soil Pesticide Other Other Unknown Requested information 

Spokane Spokane, 540108 

4/7/04, 4/7/04 Air Herbicide Burn - other 

Human factorimproper procedure 

Air pollution No follow-up required 

Spokane, 540909 

5/19/04, 5/19/04 Soil Herbicide Commercial

Human factorintentional Air pollution No follow-up required 

Spokane, 543631 

9/10/04, 9/10/04 Soil Pesticide -

Human factorintentional 

Natural resources damage 

No follow-up required 

Olympia, 542376 

7/23/04, 7/23/04 Soil Herbicide Domestic

Human factorintentional 

Potential pollutionrelease No follow-up required 

150 Ecology Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity 

Source Cause Impact Action 

Olympia, 543240 9/1/04 Soil Pesticide Commercial

Human factorintentional Soil contamination TCP-No further action 

Whatcom Everson, 539708 3/18/04 

Storm water retention pond, Swift Creek 

Pesticide Food manufacturer Improper procedure Unknown No follow-up required 

Ferndale, 540905 5/19/04 

Surface water- fresh, Agate Lake 

Herbicide Other Unknown Water pollution Telephone 

Bellingham, 541043 

5/26/04, 5/26/04 

Surface water-fresh, Anderson Creek 

Herbicide Domestic Human factor- other None Field Response- Investigation 

Lynden, 541190 

6/2/04, 6/2/04 

Surface water-fresh, Fishtrap Creek 

Herbicide Other Human factor-other Potential pollution- release Telephone, Field response- Investigation 

Yakima Sunnyside, 540455 4/23/04 Soil Pesticide Unknown

Human factorunknown Unknown Telephone

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

Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-related Complaints – 2004

y, Incident 

Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity 

Source Cause Impact Action 

Yakima, 542570 

7/22/04, 7/22/04 Other 

Pesticide, 35 container 

Other 

Human factorunknown Human 

Field responseInvestigation 

Yakima, 544695 11/10/04 Soil Pesticide Commercial Unknown Soil contamination TCP- Determination 152CitERTS# 
Agency Data Summary 

Washington State Department 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 medical 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 

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

158 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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, solvent, 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 mild 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 drifted 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 wearing 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 

160 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 before 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 care for gastrointestinal 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 

162 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 became 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 wearing 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 bottom 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 

164 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 applied 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. Because she has had eye surgery and has 

concerns for her eyes she went to the clinic with mild ocular 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 the 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 make 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 lice 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 

166 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 harvesters. 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 spilled 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 

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

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

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

174 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 contacted 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 rupturing 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 attention 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 have their shake roof cleaned and treated to 

extend the roof life. The chemical treatment 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 neurological 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 the 

orchard 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 

176 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 insecticide 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 became 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, Sulfometuron 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 

178 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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. Her 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 vegetation 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 insecticide 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

180 Health Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Labor 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, WISHA 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, WISHA 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 

Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004 

City, 

County, 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

Employees 

Covered by 

inspection/Total 

Employees 

Type of 

Business

How Exposed

Other Agencies Involved 

Inspection

Dates 

(Opened)

(Closed) 

Citations/Costs 

Warden Grant 307191882 

Raxil XT, Dividend, Extreme, Apron XL, Lindane 30 

2 / 2 Seed 

1/8/2004 1/8/2004

Serious citation: No hazard 

communication program 

General citation: Accident pre

program not effective 

Penalties assessed $100.00 

Brewster Okanogan 308241223 

Organophosphate, N-methyl carbamate 

14 / 200 Apple Orchard 12/2/2004 

12/14/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Brewster Okanogan 308241231 

Diazinon 50W, Sevin 4F, azinphos methyl, Dimethoate 

15 / 15 Apple Orchard 12/2/2004 

12/16/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Brewster Okanogan 308184159 

Pesticides 6 / 6 Apple Orchard 11/19/2004 

12/6/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Yakima Yakima 308241637 

Diazinon 50W, Carbaryl 4L, Sevin 4F, azinphos methyl, Dimethoate 

50 / 50 Apple Orchard 12/2/2004 

12/2/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Zillah Yakima 308410513 

Sevin 4F, Carzol SP, Lorsban 

5 Orchard 

packing 12/6/2004 12/6/2004 No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Othello Franklin 308410539 

Sevin 4F, Rally 40W, Success, Amid-Thin W, Gramoxone max, Carzol SP, dormant oil, zeta-zinc, Lorsban, Round-up 

4 / 4 Apple Orchard 

12/6/2004 12/6/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 

Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004 

City, 

County, 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

Employees 

Covered by 

inspection/Total 

Employees 

Type of 

Business

How Exposed

Other Agencies Involved 

Inspection

Dates 

(Opened)

(Closed) 

Citations/Costs 

Wapato Yakima 308410588 

Sevin 4F, Guthion 50 WSP, Carzol SP, Intrepid 50WP, Lorsban 4E 

3 / 200 Apple orchard 12/7/2004 

12/7/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Othello Franklin 308410935 

Guthion (azinphos methyl 50W) 

13 / 250 Apple orchard 11/29/2004 

11/29/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Wapato Yakima 308411784 

Organophosphate, N-methyl carbamate 

50 / 210 Apple orchard 12/3/2004 

12/3/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Pateros Okanogan 308426139 

Dimethoate 400, Sevin 4F, Guthion 50WP, Lorsban 4E, Carzol SP 

26 / 26 Apple orchard 12/8/2004 

12/9/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Zillah Yakima 308426329 

Organophosphate, N-methyl carbamate 

10 / 200 Orchard, 

Packing plant 12/10/2004 12/10/2004 No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Naches Yakima 308426808 

Lorsban, Carzol SP, azinphos methyl 

30 / 100 Apple, pear 

orchard 12/14/2004 12/14/2004 No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Yakima Yakima 308438399 

Lorsban 4E, Agrimek 15EC, Sevin 

4 / 4 Orchard 12/8/2004 

12/8/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Yakima Yakima 308439066 

Organophosphate, N-methyl carbamate 

5 / 130 Orchard, 

Packing plant 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Prosser Benton 308439389 

Lorsban, azinphos methyl 50 / 50 Orchard 12/20/2004 

12/21/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Outlook Yakima 308440114 

Supracide 2E, Lorsban 4E, Guthion, Imidan 70W 

5 / 5 Orchard, - 12/16/2004 

12/16/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

184 Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 

Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004 

City, 

County, 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

Employees 

Covered by 

inspection/Total 

Employees 

Type of 

Business

How Exposed

Other Agencies Involved 

Inspection

Dates 

(Opened)

(Closed) 

Citations/Costs 

Oroville Okanogan 308184738 

Organophosphates, N-methyl carbamate 

6 / 200 Apple orchard, 

Packing plant 11/23/2004 

12/16/2004

General citation: Not keeping 

hours for class 1 & 2 OP and Ncarbamates. 

No penalties assessed

Mattawa Grant 307196725 

Pesticides 26 / 32 Agriculture 1/14/2004 

2/2/2004

General citation: No hazard 

communication program. 

No penalties assessed

Okanogan Okanogan 307198838 

Kopertox (fungicide) 2 / 2 Livestock 

2/10/2004 2/10/2004

Serious citation: No hazard 

communication program. 

General citations: No acciden

prevention program, no documsafety meetings. 

Penalties assessed $100.00 

Mattawa Grant 307198853 

Fungicides, insecticides, pesticides 

10 / 10 Potato farm 2/6/2004 

2/9/2004

Serious citation: No hazard 

communication program. 

Penalties assessed $500.00 

Lynden Whatcom 307440933 

Nu-Cop 50DF (cupric hydroxide) 

1 / 1 Blueberry farm 3/10/2004 

3/11/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Lynden Whatcom 307477562 

Pesticides 5 / 5 Apple 

orchards 3/17/2004 No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Spokane Spokane 307616425 

Captan, Zindane, Allegiance 37 / 37 Seeds Chemical 

Spill 4/7/2004 5/17/2004 General citation: No employee 

on hazard communication prog

No penalties assessed 

Mount Vernon Skagit 307619577 

Esfenvalerate Captan 50 1 / 10 Berry farm 

4/12/2004 4/12/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 

Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004 

City, 

County, 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

Employees 

Covered by 

inspection/Total 

Employees 

Type of 

Business

How Exposed

Other Agencies Involved 

Inspection

Dates 

(Opened)

(Closed) 

Citations/Costs 

Mount Vernon Skagit 307642470 

Mocap 9 / 9 Potatoes 

berries 6/8/2004 

6/8/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Mount Vernon Skagit 307620047 

Pesticides 4 / 4 Berries 

4/22/2004 4/22/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Sunnyside Yakima 307620724 

Success (spinosad), Manzate 75DF (ethylene bisdithiocarbamate) 

45 / 45 Apple Orchard 

4/27/2004 4/27/2004

General citations: Information 

pesticide spraying not posted, nevaluation for respirator, no pin

No penalties assessed

Richland Franklin 307638882 

Guthion (azinphos methyl 50W) Lorsban 4E Procure 50WS Supreme oil c-c 

10 / 10 Apple Orchard 

6/17/2004 6/28/2004

General citations: Information 

pesticide spraying not posted, nrespirator change-out schedulerespirator fit-tests, no pint eye feyewash 

No penalties assessed

Burlington Skagit 307646141 

Pesticides 2 / 60 Egg 

processing

 6/10/2004

General citations: No monthly 

meetings, no MSDS Index or cinventory, no annual training on use, pesticide application recornot kept as required. 

No penalties assessed

Othello Franklin 307646232 

Pesticides 57 / 57 Apple Orchard 

DOH 6/15/2004 9/29/2004

General citation: No change o

schedule for respirator cartridgecanisters.

No penalties assessed

Snohomish Snohomish 307856252 

LI 700, Kocide, Crossbow, Wilbur Ellis R11 

13 / 13 Ornamental 

tree farm 6/16/2004 8/4/2004 Serious citation: No eyewash 

Penalties assessed $100.00 

186 Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 

Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004 

City, 

County, 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

Employees 

Covered by 

inspection/Total 

Employees 

Type of 

Business

How Exposed

Other Agencies Involved 

Inspection

Dates 

(Opened)

(Closed) 

Citations/Costs 

Mattawa Grant 307857227 

Guthion (azinphos methyl 50W) 

19 / 250 Apple Orchard Exposure to 

Guthion 

residue 

spraying 

and thinning

WSDA 7/7/2004 10/14/2004

General citation: No pesticide 

poster within 30 days of applica

Message: Ensure eyewash an

flush are available. 

Marysville Snohomish 307858514 

Copper sulfate 2 / 2 Dairy farm 

7/14/2004 7/14/2004

Serious citation: Emergency e

not available. 

General citations: No written 

communication program, no chinventory, no MSDS’s available chemicals, no hazard communtraining. 

Penalties assessed $150.00 

Quincy Grant 307863431 

Lorsban 4E SG 2 / 3 Orchard 

WSDA 8/18/2004 9/7/2004

Serious citations: Employees 

wearing PPE required by the lapesticide handler training, no Cholinesterase medical monitoprogram for handlers, no trainincholinesterase inhibiting pesticrespirator fit-test, medical exam training not provided. 

General citations: pesticide po

displayed at mixing station, emmedical information not displaymixing loading station, handling records not kept, no written resprogram, no emergency eyewamixing station. 

Penalties assessed $2,750.00 

Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 

Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004 

City, 

County, 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

Employees 

Covered by 

inspection/Total 

Employees 

Type of 

Business

How Exposed

Other Agencies Involved 

Inspection

Dates 

(Opened)

(Closed) 

Citations/Costs 

Orting Pierce 307863548 

Lorsban 4E, Tenkoz Trifluralin4, Thionex 50W, Endosulfan 3EC 

26 / 26 Cabbage farm 

8/5/2004 

10/6/2004

Serious citations: no emergen

eyewash at mixing station, no wrespirator program, no respiratono effective respirator training. 

General citations: no medical 

before respirator use, respiratoclean, respirator improperly stogrouped citations for sub-standhousing, potable drinking water ensured, screening on windows doors, only one toilet and sink pfor 26 people, no pesticide hantraining, pesticide poster not dismixing station, pesticide safety information not posted after appemergency medical information displayed at mixing loading stapesticide handling hours recordkept, no Hazard communication 

Penalties assessed $2,150.00 

Cowiche Yakima 307877506 

Chlorpyrifos 4E 10 / 200 Apple orchard Spraying 

pesticides DOH 8/18/2004 9/16/2004 General citations: No medical evaluations, no fit-tests for resp

No penalties assessed 

Sunnyside Yakima 308078054 

Pesticides 10 / 10 Apple orchard 11/18/2004 

12/28/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

Naches Yakima 308241611 

Organophosphate, N-methyl carbamate 

22 / 22 Apple orchard 11/26/2004 

11/26/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

188 Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
Labor and Industries Agency Data I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 

Summary of WISHA Pesticide-related Investigations, 2004 

Cit

Coun

Inspec

White SwYakim307846337 QuincGrant 307417204 SunnyYakim307620328 Zillah Yakim307480020 

y, 

ty, 

tion 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

Employees 

Covered by 

inspection/Total 

Employees 

Type of 

Business

How Exposed

Other Agencies Involved 

Inspection

Dates 

(Opened)

(Closed) 

Citations/Costs 

an 

a 

Surround WP 3 / 125 Apple orchard 

6/23/2004 6/23/2004

Serious citation: No respiratoMessage to employer: Obser

after pesticide application. 

Penalties assessed $240.00 

y Pesticides and herbicides 3 / 3 Apple orchard 

3/15/2004 3/30/2004

General citations: No acciden

prevention program, no requireposters, safety meetings not hemonthly, potable drinking water provided by employer, no hand facilities near portable toilet. 

No Penalties assessed

side 

a 

Pesticides 45 / 45 Fruit orchards, 

Packing 4/27/2004 No citations issued No penalties assessed 

a 

Rubigan EC, Omite-30WS Oxycom, Respond plus 

2 / 2 Vineyard 3/12/2004 

3/12/2004

No citations issued No penalties assessed 

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 PESTICIDE LICENSE TYPES

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 Certificate (FRIC) must be filed with 

WSDA by the insuring company. 

Commercial 

Operator 

A person employed by a WSDA-licensed 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 pesticides 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 commercial 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 pesticides 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 Public 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 will 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. 

194 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 Department 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 WSDA 

Pesticide 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 Tracking Review (PIRT) panel recommends adoption of 

the proposed modification to the General Pesticide 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 homes, adult and child day care centers. 

The PIRT panel recognizes that pesticide drift is a potentially serious route of exposure to pesticides. Prenotification of schools, daycares, and hospitals will increase their awareness of highly toxic pesticides used 

nearby, facilitate feedback to the growers about the 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 near sensitive sites or otherwise prevent drift, they are an important and 

welcome change. 

We also note that others could benefit from notifications including: adjacent homes, assisted living facilities, 

senior centers, preschools, private schools, community pools, 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) 833-6388 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 207

Appendix G 

DOH Comments on Metam-sodium 

Pesticide 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 illness 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/injuries. Not all cases were 

considered related to pesticides upon investigation. Data from investigations are published annually and used 

by state agencies and community groups to guide prevention 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 year period), fumigant-related illnesses can be severe, longlasting, and can involve large numbers of people. 

Figure 1 shows the specific 

fumigant involved in 41 

fumigant cases1

 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 the risk of illness per application for separate fumigant 

products. Metam-sodium may be reported more because 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 Toxicology2

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. Investigation of metam-sodium cases in WA reveals that 

there are worker protection issues as well as community drift issues with this fumigant. 

Occupational Exposures: 

A review of our documented illnesses involving metam-sodium 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 drenched 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 tried to decontaminate his drenched leather boots with 

water. This allowed the rapid conversion of metam-sodium to the fumigant, MITC, and led to first and 

second degree burns on both feet. 

Respirators are required and normally worn by metam-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. Investigation revealed that the cab had only a simple air 

filter. Employers must ensure that respirators are fit-tested 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. 

210 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 provide 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 Investigation 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 strong 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 fumigations 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 exposures3

. 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 illnesses 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 volatiles 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 contaminant, 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 rules 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 investigation of drift complaints. It would also aid in the 

human health investigations. 

Investigating and mitigating community inhalation hazard. DOH is concerned with reported air monitoring 

data from CA4

. These data show that air levels of MITC in agricultural communities exceeded levels of 

human health concern. Lee et al. (2002) reported that exposure estimates for MITC exceeded health-based 

reference values for 50 percent of the 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 CA4

. Washington 

growers tend to use chemigation methods rather than shank injection. Chemigation is associated with more 

off-gassing of MITC5. Washington State does not currently conduct 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 inhalation hazard in communities living near fumigated 

fields. We urge EPA to collect and use data from Washington rather than rely solely on Florida or CA data. 

Washington State is second to CA in the amount of metam-sodium applied annually. WA air data will ensure 

that fumigation practices, soil type, and weather patterns 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 incidents involving metam-sodium, 2000- 2004, Washington 

Brief summary of pesticide illness investigations conducted 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 methyl isothiocyanate from the application of metam-sodium 

by chemigation and shank injection. Atmospheric Environment 38:2257-2470. 

212 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report 
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 chemigated. 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. 

214 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2005 Annual Report