Pesticide Incident Reporting and 

Tracking Review Panel 

Annual Report

A report to the Governor and the legislature as required by Chapter 380, Laws of 1989, 

and RCW 70.104. 

Approved by the Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel, 

May 2007.

To obtain copies or for additional information, please contact: 

Cynthia Lopez, Pesticide Program Manager 

PO Box 47846 

Olympia, Washington 98504-7846 

Phone: 360.236.3340 

Fax: 360.236.2261 

Email: cynthia.lopez@doh.wa.gov 

The annual report is available in electronic format on the Internet at 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/Pirt/#pirtreports. Errors or errata found after publication of this 

report will also be posted at this address. 

For persons with disabilities, this document is available on request in other formats. 

To submit a request, please call 1.800.525.0127 (voice) or 1.800.833.6388 (TTY/TDD). 

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

toll-free number 1.888.586.9427. 

Division of Environmental Health 

Office of Environmental Health Assessments 

Pub # 334-134 9/2007 
Agency Contacts 

Contacts for agencies and organizations 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 

Kelly McLain _______________________________________________ 360.407.6938 

Washington State Department of Health 

Cynthia Lopez______________________________________________ 360.236.3340 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Pamela Edwards ___________________________________________ 360.902.6457 

Washington Poison Center 

William Robertson, MD_______________________________________ 206.517.2356 
Table of Contents 

List of Acronyms 9

Executive Summary 11

Combined Agency Data _______________________________________________ 11

Highlighted Panel Activities and Issues for 2006 ____________________________ 12

PIRT Activities ______________________________________________________ 12

Summary Data for PIRT Agencies _______________________________________ 13

Introduction 17

PIRT Panel Activities

Background ________________________________________________________ 23

Recommendations to the PIRT Review Panel and Member Agencies for 2006_____ 23

Other Panel Activities for 2006 __________________________________________ 30

Agriculture

Background ________________________________________________________ 35

Complaints _________________________________________________________ 35

Violations __________________________________________________________ 39

Agricultural Complaints________________________________________________ 41

Non-Agricultural Complaints____________________________________________ 42

Children and Farmworker Cases ________________________________________ 43

Severity of Reported Complaints ________________________________________ 44

Type of Pesticide Involved _____________________________________________ 45

Enforcement Actions _________________________________________________ 47

Other Agencies Involved ______________________________________________ 47

WSDA Prevention Activities 2005________________________________________ 48

Ecology

Background ________________________________________________________ 51

Spill Prevention, Preparedness, Response Program: Pesticide-Related Incidents __ 51

Toxics Cleanup Program: Contaminated Sites Containing Pesticides ____________ 53

Water Quality Program: Aquatic Pesticide Permit ___________________________ 54

Surface Water Monitoring______________________________________________ 56

Health

Background ________________________________________________________ 59

Sources of Case Reports ______________________________________________ 59

Classification of Investigated Cases______________________________________ 60

Severity of Medical Outcome ___________________________________________ 63

Enhanced Surveillance Pilot: January – March 2005 _________________________ 65

Number and Location of Investigated Cases _______________________________ 66

Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness ____________________________ 70
A Complex Occupational Case from 2005 _________________________________ 71

Agricultural Pesticide Incidents__________________________________________ 71

Non-Agricultural Pesticide Incidents______________________________________ 78

Highlight on Pesticide Drift _____________________________________________ 81

Highlights of DOH Prevention Activities 2006_______________________________ 89

Labor and Industries

Background ________________________________________________________ 95

Cholinesterase Monitoring _____________________________________________ 95

Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) _________________________ 99

L&I Claims Insurance Services Division, Claims Administration Program ________ 103

Washington Poison Center

Background _______________________________________________________ 107

Human Exposure Calls_______________________________________________ 107

WPC Human Exposure Calls Reported to Department of Health_______________ 108

Type of Pesticides Involved in WPC Human Exposure Calls __________________ 110

Severity of Human Exposures to Pesticides_______________________________ 112

Appendix A Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Pane

Pesticides - Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090 _________________________ 113

2005 and 2006 PIRT Panel Representatives ______________________________ 114

2005 and 2006 PIRT Panel Coordinators_________________________________ 114

Pesticide Incident Definition ___________________________________________ 115

Primary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticide Exposure _______________ 116

Agency Response Time Mandates______________________________________ 118

Appendix B Case and Severity Classifications

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications ______________ 119

NIOSH Severity Classifications ________________________________________ 120

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category _______________________________ 121

Appendix C Agency Data Summaries

Washington State Department of Agriculture Agency Data Summary ___________ 123 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program ____________________ 163

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary ______________ 175

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries ______________________ 205

Appendix D License Types and Enforcement Action Definitions

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types__________ 213

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Enforcement Action Definitions ____ 214

Appendix E Department of Ecology Maps 215

Appendix F 2006 PIRT Letters 221

Appendix G 2006 DOH Letters and Publications 229
List of Tables

Table 1. Overlap of Pesticide-Related Events* by Agency, 2005 __________________11

Table 2. Individual Agencies’ Summaries of Their Specific Pesticide Events, 2005____16

Table 3. Pesticide Events Reported to Agencies and WPC, 2001 – 2005 ___________18

Table 4. Overlap of Pesticide-Related Events* by Agency, 2005 __________________19

Table 5. Agency Response Times, 2005 ____________________________________21

Table 6. DOH Cases* Associated with Mosquito Control, 2002 – 2005 _____________30

Table 7. WSDA Complaints and Violations, 2001 – 2005________________________35

Table 8. WSDA Counties with the Most Complaints, 2001 – 2005_________________36

Table 9. Initial Complaints, WSDA Cases, 2005_______________________________38

Table 10. Comparison of Washington State to National Drift Survey _______________39

Table 11. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2001 – 2005_____________________40

Table 12. WSDA Agricultural Violations, 2005 ________________________________42

Table 13. WSDA Non-Agricultural Violations, 2005 ____________________________42

Table 14. Severity Rating of WSDA Complaint Cases, 2001 – 2005 _______________44

Table 15. Active Ingredients Most Commonly Involved in WSDA Complaints, 2005 ___46

Table 16. WSDA Agency Actions, 2001 – 2005 _______________________________47

Table 17. Ecology Pesticide-Related Complaints, 2001 – 2005 ___________________51

Table 18. Status of Sites Listed on Confirmed and Contaminated Sites Report, 2005__54

Table 19. Total Product Applied Under Noxious Weed NPDES Permit, 2005 ________55

Table 20. Total Product Applied Under Fish Management NPDES Permit, 2005 _____55

Table 21. Total Product Applied Under Irrigation District NPDES Permit, 2005 _______55

Table 22. Mosquito General NPDES Permit, 2005_____________________________56

Table 23. Classification Criteria of Definite, Probable, and Possible _______________61

Table 24. Definite, Probable, and Possible Case (DPP) Classification, 2001 – 2005___62

Table 25. Top 11 Counties with the Most Reported Cases*, 2005 _________________67

Table 26. Annual Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Cases*, 2001 – 2005 ___________68

Table 27. Cases by Season of the Year*, 2005 _______________________________69

Table 28. Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases* by Age and Gender, 2005 ____69

Table 29. Agricultural Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases by Source, 2005* __72

Table 30. Agricultural Drift to Workers and Others, 2001 – 2005* _________________72

Table 31. Pesticide Involved in Cases* Involving Agricultural Workers by Ingredient___74

Table 32. Type of Illness* for Handlers** of Cholinesterase Inhibiting Pesticides _____76

Table 33. Agricultural Cases* by Target and Activity, 2005 ______________________78
Table 34. Exposure Site for Non-Agricultural, Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases, 

2005* _______________________________________________________________79

Table 35. Target Pest for Non-Agricultural, Non-Occupational Cases Exposed to 

Pesticide Applications by Professional* and Non-Professional Applicators, 2005** ____80

Table 36. DOH cases* involved with Agricultural Pesticide Drift___________________82

Table 37. Pesticide Involved with Reported Agricultural Drift cases*, 2004-2005 _____85

Table 38. WSDA Drift Complaints, 2004 – 2005_______________________________88

Table 39. Baseline and Periodic Testing for Cholinesterase Monitoring Participants by 

Number of Handlers per Employer, 2006 ___________________________________97

Table 40. Status of L&I Claims Initially Related to Pesticides, 2001 – 2005_________104

Table 41. Comparison of L&I Claims and DOH Classification Status, 2005 _________105

Table 42. WPC Human Exposure to Pesticide Calls, 2001– 2005 ________________107

Table 43. Pesticide-related Calls to WPC Investigated by DOH, 2001 – 2005_______109

Table 44. WPC Pesticide-Related Exposures By Age of Case, 2005______________110

Table 45. WPC Type of Insecticide Involved in Human Exposure Calls, 2001 – 2005_111

Table 46. WPC Human Exposure Calls by Medical Outcome/Disposition*, 2005 ____113
List of Figures

Figure 1. Overlap of PIRT Member Agencies Pesticide Related Events, 2005 _______20

Figure 2. Number of WSDA Complaints by County, 2005 _______________________36

Figure 3. WSDA Nature of Initial Complaints by Number, 2005 ___________________37

Figure 4. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2005 ___________________________40

Figure 5. WSDA Type of Licensee Involved in Cases With and Without Violations, 2005

____________________________________________________________________41

Figure 6. Type of Pesticide Used in WSDA Complaints by Location, 2005 __________46

Figure 7. Source of Case Reports,* 2005 ____________________________________59

Figure 8. Classification of Cases, 2005 _____________________________________61

Figure 9. Severity of Medical Outcome, DPP Cases, 2005 ______________________64

Figure 10. DOH Reported Incidents and Cases, 2001 – 2005 ____________________66

Figure 11. Distribution of Cases by County, 2005______________________________67

Figure 12. Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Occupational Cases*, 2001 – 2005______70

Figure 13. Type of Illness and Injury* for Handlers of Cholinesterase-InhibitingPesticides,** 1996 – 2005________________________________________________75

Figure 14. Drift as a Proportion of all DOH DPP Cases,_________________________81

Figure 15. Site of Exposure, 2004 – 2005, DPP Cases _________________________82

Figure 16. DOH Agricultural Drift DPP Cases by Crop Type, 2004 – 2005 __________83

Figure 17. DOH Drift DPP Cases Involving Tree Fruit, 2002 – 2003 _______________83

Figure 18. DOH Drift DPP Cases Involving Tree Fruit, 2002 – 2003 _______________84

Figure 19. DOH Drift DPP Agricultural Cases by Type of Application Equipment, 2004 – 

2005 ________________________________________________________________86 

Figure 20. DOH Drift DPP Cases by License Status of Applicator, 2004 – 2005 ______87

Figure 21. DOSH Workplace Safety and Health Inspections, 2001 – 2005 _________100

Figure 22. DOSH Pesticide-Related Inspections by Type of Workplace, 2005 ______101

Figure 23. WISHA General and Serious Violations Involving Pesticides, 2005 ______103

List of Acronyms 

DOH Washington State Department of Health 

DPP Definitely, Probably or Possibly

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

WPC Washington Poison Center 

WPS Worker Protection Standard 

WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture 

Executive Summary 

The annual report summarizes pesticide incidence data collected by agencies during 

2005 and activities of the PIRT Review Panel for 2006. 

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. PIRT panel members include representatives of 

five state agencies and the Washington Poison Center (WPC) 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 PIRT panel for 

evaluation. PIRT submits an annual report summarizing pesticide incidents to the 

legislature. This 2006 report presents individual and combined agency data for 

2005 and a summary of the activities of PIRT and its member agencies for 2006. 

Combined Agency Data 

The overlap in pesticide-related cases between agencies and the Washington 

Poison Center for 2005 is displayed in Table 1. The shaded cells show the total 

number of incidents reported to PIRT 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 a cell, 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, 2005 

WSDA Ecology DOH L&I Claims WISHA WPC 

WSDA 193 1 17/38 2/3 0 2 

Ecology 1 39 3/5 1 0 1 

DOH 17/38 3/5 220/252 91/93 4/5 130 

L&I Claims 2/3 1 91/93 93 3 13 

WISHA 0 0 4/5 3 31 1 

WPC 2 1 130 13 1 2430 

* 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 Washington State Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) Spills Program includes both actual environmental 

contamination and calls from concerned neighbors about the possible illegal use 

of pesticides that turn out to be legal. Data from 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. 

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 11
Highlighted Panel Activities and Issues for 2006 

PIRT made 11 recommendations for collective and member agency action for 

2006. 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 PIRT panel in 2006 include: 

• cholinesterase monitoring (page 237) 

• pesticide drift (page 23) 

• the Worker Protection Standard (page 24) 

• a pilot project related to General Pesticide Rules (concerning notification 

of certain pesticide applications) (page 241) 

• disclosure of inert ingredients on pesticide labels (page 245) 

• West Nile virus (page 10) 

PIRT Activities 

Cholinesterase Monitoring 

The Cholinesterase Monitoring Rule (Chapter 296-148 WAC) was implemented 

in February 2004 when Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) began the 

Cholinesterase Monitoring Program. Based on the report by L&I’s Scientific 

Advisory Committee (SAC) Final Report: Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide 

Handlers in Agriculture: 2004-2006, 1889 workers participated in the 

cholinesterase monitoring program during 2006. Workers who handle toxicity 

category I or II organophosphate or carbamate pesticides are eligible for 

monitoring if their number of handling hours is expected to exceed the threshold 

of 30 hours in 30 consecutive days, as defined by the rule. A baseline test was 

performed for each enrolled worker. A total of 693 periodic tests were performed 

for 471 workers who had reached the pesticide-handling hour threshold. There 

were a total of 57 alerts issued to workers at the workplace evaluation level and 

eight workers at the workplace removal level. Overall, the data indicate that 12 

percent of enrolled workers had cholinesterase depression at the time of periodic 

testing during 2006. 

Yakima PIRT Meeting 

The PIRT panel met nine times in 2006. Each year, one meeting is held in 

eastern Washington to include members of the agricultural community. The June 

meeting was held in Yakima. This meeting is featured in this report because it 

was planned specifically for this audience and was well-attended by 

representatives of the farming community. Dr. David Kalman (University of 

Washington) gave an overview of the cholinesterase monitoring program and 

findings of the SAC. The agricultural community posed questions and concerns 

about upcoming changes to the monitoring program. Representatives from L&I 

and WSDA clarified their agencies’ roles in enforcement of Worker Protection 

Standards. A Washington State Department of Health (DOH) representative gave 

a presentation on a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

12 Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
grant to investigate root causes of pesticide-related illness in the agricultural 

setting. 

PIRT Letters of Endorsement and Recommendation 

The PIRT panel sent four letters of support or recommendation in 2006. A copy 

of these letters can be found in Appendix F. 

• PIRT submitted a letter in February supporting Dr. Matt Keifer’s research 

proposal to NIOSH for identifying factors that make a pesticide handler 

susceptible to cholinesterase depression, and for reducing the cost and 

complexity of cholinesterase monitoring. 

• In May, PIRT submitted a letter to Gary Weeks, director of L&I, 

expressing concerns about L&I’s proposed changes to the 

cholinesterase monitoring program. Members recommended that L&I 

implement a long-term process to monitor quality of the cholinesterase 

program, and called for ongoing involvement of the Stakeholder and 

Scientific Advisory Committees and for continuing the publication of an 

annual report on cholinesterase monitoring. 

• In June, PIRT requested an update from WSDA on a pilot project related 

to the General Pesticide Rule. The project would require notification of 

schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and day cares of nearby pesticide 

application. 

• In December, PIRT sent a letter to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) in support of a petition sent by numerous 

states’ attorneys generals. Petitioners identified 381 substances used as 

inert ingredients, listed as hazardous chemicals by various statutory 

authorities. The attorneys general urged the EPA to make regulatory 

changes requiring disclosure of these hazardous chemicals when used 

as inert ingredients. Members acknowledged that full disclosure of inert 

ingredients is not currently feasible, but recommended that the EPA work 

toward this in the near future. 

Summary Data for PIRT Agencies 

The following agency summaries identify key points from the analysis of 2005 

pesticide incident data. 

Department of Agriculture 

In 2005, WSDA investigated 193 pesticide-related complaints. After investigation, 

it was determined that 117 (61%) involved pesticide applications and 71 (37%) 

were unrelated to actual applications. During 2005, 113 (59%) of WSDA 

complaint investigations resulted in some type of violation. Drift continues to be 

one of the most frequent types of complaint involving pesticide applications. 

WSDA received 76 complaints about drift in general and 22 complaints 

specifically about human exposure due to drift. Licensing and Structural 

Inspections are the most frequent non-pesticide application complaints. The 

other complaints concerned such issues as improper licenses and Wood 

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 13
Destroying Organism inspections. In 2005, with the exception of drift, complaints 

covered more diverse topics than in previous years. 

Department of Ecology 

In 2005, Ecology investigated 39 pesticide-related complaints involving threats to 

air, water, or soil. Twenty-three complaints concerned threats to ground or 

surface water, 12 involved spills or fires, five involved unsafe pesticide storage 

and handling, and two involved pesticide disposal or waste concerns. Ecology is 

responsible for oversight of contaminated areas requiring cleanup or monitoring. 

During 2005, Ecology placed 11 new pesticide-contaminated sites on the Toxic 

Cleanup Program list. Ecology’s Water Quality program is responsible for aquatic 

pesticide and mosquito control permitting, as detailed in Ecology’s summary. 

Department of Health 

In 2005, DOH investigated 220 pesticide incidents involving 252 individuals. Of 

the 252 illnesses/injuries, 188 (75%) were classified as definitely, probably, or 

possibly (DPP) related to pesticide exposure. 

Seventy-seven (31%) of the 2005 DPP cases were related to agriculture. Fifty 

agricultural cases were associated with the tree fruit industry, 21 with field crops 

and two with ornamental nurseries. The remaining four cases were not 

associated with applications to specific crops. Sixty-one agricultural cases 

involved agricultural workers. Of these, 28 workers were handling pesticides at 

the time of their exposure. 

There were 111 non-agricultural DPP cases in 2005. Thirty-four of these 

occurred on the job (occupational) and 77 were non-occupational. Of the 34 

occupational cases, 18 were handling pesticides at the time of exposure. Of the 

77 non-agricultural, non-occupational exposures, 66 occurred in homes, six in 

roads or vehicles, four in businesses, and one in a park. 

Department of Labor and Industries 

L&I’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) Services Division 

conducted 31 pesticide-related safety and health inspections in 2005. Twenty-six 

(84%) of the inspections resulted in general or serious citations being issued to 

the employer and five inspections did not involve citations. 

In 2005, the L&I Insurance Services Division, Claims Administration Program 

received 93 claims which appeared to be related to pesticide illness and referred 

these to DOH. Of the 93 claims, 64 (69%) were compensated by L&I as being 

work related injuries and 29 were rejected. Sixty-four (69%) were related to 

agriculture and 29 were non-agricultural. DOH investigated the 93 claims and 

classified 41 agricultural and 29 non-agricultural claims (75% of all claims) as 

having signs or symptoms that were definitely, probably, or possibly related to 

the pesticide exposure. 

Of the 41 DPP agricultural workers, 32 claims involved workers in the tree fruit 

industry, three involved the potato industry, and three were in nurseries or 

greenhouses. 

14 Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Washington Poison Center 

In 2005, WPC provided immediate professional medical advice regarding 

pesticide-related questions and emergencies to 2430 callers. Of the 2430 calls, 

1347 involved insecticides and 137 involved insect repellents. Herbicides were 

involved in 457 of the calls. In 2005, 52 (2%) pesticide-related human exposure 

calls involved moderate or major health effects. Fifty (2%) calls involved 

intentional exposure. DOH screened all human pesticide-related illness calls to 

WPC and investigated 130 calls where the caller sought medical care and the 

exposure was not part of a suicidal gesture. One hundred of these involved 

illnesses determined to be definitely, probably or possibly related to pesticide 

exposure. 

Summary Data 

Table 2 summarizes 2005 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. 

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 15
Table 2. Individual Agencies’ Summaries of Their Specific Pesticide Events, 2005 

Department of Agriculture: 193 Complaints Resulting in 113 Violations 

Complaints 193 Violations 113 

Location of Complaint Violations by Type of Activity 

Eastern Washington 123 Agriculture 39 

Western Washington 70 Commercial/industrial 36 

Structural Pest Inspection (SPI) 8 

Residential (homeowners) 4 

 Enforcement Actions* 116 Right-of-way 5 

 Notice of correction (NOC) 76 Other (license/records) 21 

 Notice of intent/Admin action 

 (NOI) 23 

 Advisory letter/Warning letter 9 License Involved with Violations 113 

 Referred 2 Commercial applicator 27 

Verbal warning 6 Unlicensed 32 

Private applicator 23 

 * No action indicated 77 Structural Pest Inspection 17 

 Public operator 7 

 Other (Dealer, Private 

 Commercial) 7 

Department of Health: 220 Incidents Involving 252 Individual Cases 

Type of Incident 220 Classification of Cases 252 

 Agriculture 83 Definite 49 

 Residential 90 Probable 48 

 Commercial/Industrial 30 Possible 91 

 Other 17 Suspicious 9 

Unlikely 10 

Insufficient information 44 

Unrelated 1 

Childhood Cases ≤ 18 years old 32 Definite, Probable or Possible Cases 188 

Definite, Probably or Possible 

 Cases 22 Agriculture 77 

Non-Agriculture 111 

Department of Labor and Industries: 31 Industrial Safety and Health Inspections 

 101 Worker Compensation Claims

Pesticide-related Inspections 31 Worker Compensation Claims 93 

 Serious and/or General 

 Citations 26 Agriculture 64 

 No citations 5 Non-Agriculture 29 

 Type of Business 31 Benefits 

 Orchard 8 Accepted – Medical/time loss 64 

 Nursery 6 Rejected 29 

 Other agricultural 5 Pending 0 

 Forestry 4 

 Wheat 3 

 Non-agricultural 5 

Department of Ecology: 39 Pesticide Complaints (Complaints may involve more than one 

category) 

Threats to ground or surface water 23 

Spills or fires 12 

Pesticide disposal or waste concerns 2 

Unsafe pesticide storage or handling 5 

Washington Poison Center: 2430 Human Exposure Pesticide-Related Calls 

 DOH-identified calls for 

 investigation 130 

16 Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Introduction 

Created in 1990, the 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 PIRT panel consists of representatives of 

Washington State Departments of Agriculture (WSDA), Ecology (Ecology), 

Health (DOH), Labor and Industries (L&I), Natural Resources (DNR), and Fish 

and Wildlife (WDFW), representatives of the University of Washington, 

Washington State University, and Washington Poison Center (WPC), a practicing 

toxicologist, and a member of the public (Appendix A). 

Member agencies and the WPC conduct pesticide incident investigations in 

accordance with their specific statutory responsibilities and report findings to the 

PIRT panel for evaluation. The PIRT 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 PIRT panel has no regulatory authority but acts in an oversight capacity to 

the six agencies and makes recommendations to the agencies, to the legislature, 

to the Governor, and to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

This 2006 report is the PIRT panel’s fifteenth annual report. It summarizes 

pesticide-related 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 

2005. 

• Describes PIRT panel and member agency activities for 2006. 

• Describes how pesticide-related calls, complaints, incidents, and 

investigations overlap between agencies. 

Introduction I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 17
Combined Agency Data 

The number of events (defined as complaints, inspections, claims or calls) 

reported to agencies and calls made to WPC for the years 2001-2005 are listed 

in Table 3. 

Table 3. Pesticide Events Reported to Agencies and WPC, 2001 – 2005 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

WSDA Complaints 225 255 222 200 193 

Ecology Complaints 35 46 33 29 39 

DOH Events DOH 

Individuals Involved 

200 216 

270 

242 

275 

245 220 

250 269 252 

WISHA Inspections 27 64 22 43 31 

L&I Claims 129 109 133 101 93 

WPC Calls 2171 2043 1937 2342 2430 

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 Division of Occupational Safety and 

Health (DOSH) 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 DOSH conducts safety and health workplace inspections in 

agriculture/industry and investigates employee complaints and referrals 

from agencies and others. With WSDA, DOSH enforces the WPS for 

agricultural workers. DOSH also enforces 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 an ill 

worker, the case is referred to DOH. If a DOH investigation finds a label or safety 

violation, it is referred to WSDA or L&I DOSH. L&I claims related to pesticideexposure are reported to DOH. These referrals result in overlapping agency data 

for cases involving pesticide-related illness. 

18 Introduction I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
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 2005 is illustrated in 

Table 4 and Figure 1. The shaded cells in Table 4 show the total number of 

incidents reported to the PIRT panel 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 193 complaints about incidents involving a pesticide application. 

The Ecology Spill Response Program investigated one incident from WSDA. 

DOH co-investigated 17 incidents from WSDA incidents involving 38 human 

illnesses. In two incidents, three workers filed an L&I claim. Two incidents were 

reported to WPC. 

Table 4. Overlap of Pesticide-Related Events* by Agency, 2005 

WSDA Ecology DOH L&I Claims WISHA WPC 

WSDA 193 1 17/38 2/3 0 2/2 

Ecology 1 39 3/5 1/1 0 1/1 

DOH 17/38 3/5 220/252 91/93 4/5 130 

L&I Claims 2/3 1/1 91/93 93 3/3 13/13 

WISHA 0 0 4/5 3/3 31 1/1 

WPC 2/2 1/1 130 13/13 1/1 2430 

* 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, 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. 

Figure 1 illustrates how PIRT agency datasets overlap for 2005. The figure is not 

drawn to scale. The WPC circle is large because WPC receives many calls for 

general information on pesticides. The number of calls to WPC concerning actual 

pesticide-related human exposures is relatively few. 

Introduction I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 19
Figure 1. Overlap of PIRT Member Agencies Pesticide Related 

Events, 2005 

L&I WISHA 

workplace 

safety 

investigations 

(31). 

WSDA 

pesticide and 

pest control 

complaints 

(193). 

Ecology 

Spills 

Program 

complaints 

(39). 

WPC calls 

about 

pesticides 

(2430) 

L&I insurance 

claims that 

mentioned a 

pesticide 

exposure (93). 

DOH 

investigations 

of reported 

illness (252).

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. 

Agency Response Times 

Revised Code of Washington 70.104.080 (Appendix A) specifically directs the 

PIRT 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 

2005 are listed in Table 5. 

20 Introduction I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 5. Agency Response Times, 2005 

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 

• 96% of all cases within 24 hours 

Ecology 

 No legislative mandate for response time. 

 67% of the 39 cases responded to within 

24 hours 

 18% had unknown incident dates 

 13% had greater than 24 hour response 

time 

Health 

• Hospital admission, death, or threat to 

public health within 24 hours • The one severe report within 24 hours 

• 96% within 48 hours 

• All others 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 

Introduction I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 21

PIRT Panel Activities 

The PIRT Annual Report summarizes the activities of the PIRT Review Panel and 

member agencies for 2006. 

Background 

The PIRT (PIRT) Review Panel met nine times in 2006. PIRT monitored each 

agency’s response time to incidents (see Combined Agency Data, page 16) and 

actions stemming from recommendations made in previous years. PIRT also 

analyzed incident data to identify trends and patterns of problems related to 

pesticides, and responded to requests for special activities from the panel 

members. 

PIRT adopted the following recommendations in 2006 for Panel action and 

member agency action. 

Recommendations to the PIRT Review Panel and Member 

Agencies for 2006 

All of these Action Recommendations are ongoing, and will be carried forward to 

2007. 

Recommendation 1 PIRT Review Panel and member agencies will continue 

to report on actions taken in response to findings from 

the DOH investigations into under-reporting of 

pesticide-related illnesses. 

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts/Cynthia Lopez 

Department of Health 

In the 2005 PIRT Report, Department of Health (DOH) Pesticide Program staff 

recommended changes in ongoing efforts to improve reporting of pesticiderelated illness by health care providers. These changes include increasing health 

care providers’ (HCP) awareness of the requirement and outcome of their 

reporting, and providing clinicians with an easier and more efficient means of 

reporting pesticide related illness. In 2006, DOH continued outreach and 

education to health care providers and communities, and focused on refining the 

development of electronic means of pesticide-related illness reporting. 

In June, DOH Pesticide staff visited 31 health care providers in 12 eastern 

Washington counties at 20 hospital emergency rooms. During these contacts, 

DOH staff reminded providers that suspected pesticide-related illness is a 

Notifiable Condition. Materials were distributed, including: the latest revision of 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publication Recognition and 

Management of Pesticide Poisonings, examples of DOH pesticide brochures with 

instructions for ordering more on line, journal articles which DOH co-authored on 

pesticide illnesses among emergency responders and reported side effects of 

lindane lice products, and a brochure from University of Washington PNASH 

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 23
(Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health). In addition, DOH staff 

demonstrated online professional resources for providers regarding identification 

of pesticides, evaluation of patients by conducting exposure histories, and use of 

the DOH Notifiable Conditions website (www.doh.wa.gov/notify/nc/pesticide.htm). 

Providers’ emails were obtained for use in follow-up. 

In June and July, DOH Pesticide Program staff made presentations to health 

care providers at three clinics in Yakima, Wenatchee, and Sunnyside. The 

importance of obtaining exposure history in the clinical setting with case 

examples was reviewed, and the DOH Pesticide Program was explained. DOH 

staff emphasized the significance of reporting pesticide-related illness as a 

Notifiable Condition. Other outreach and education activities by DOH Pesticide 

Program staff included staffing a pesticide education and safety exhibit at the 

annual WA Health Foundation Latina Health Fair in Seattle, providing pesticide 

education and safety exhibits at Commission on Hispanic Affairs meetings 

(bimonthly) in eastern and western Washington, and giving a presentation to 

Labor & Industry’s Chemically-Related Illness Program staff. 

A continuing effort is being made to have educational materials in both English 

and Spanish provided to patients, health care providers, and growers during 

DOH surveillance investigations. 

Electronic reporting implemented in 2005 continues to bring both WPC and L&I 

referrals to the DOH Pesticide Program. The database that handles confidential 

information from the WPC was enhanced in 2006 to allow for improved data 

extraction on symptomatic pesticide exposures for which no medical care is 

sought. These are cases not currently investigated and summarized by DOH. 

The enhancement will allow DOH to better summarize all pesticide exposures of 

concern, gather data on the target pest involved, and prioritize educational efforts 

on safer pest control for specific pests. 

Other Electronic Reporting Projects 

DOH and Washington Environmental Public Health Tracking Network have 

partnered with Inland Northwest Health Services (INHS) to explore the feasibility 

and usefulness of obtaining electronic reports of pesticide illness cases from 

emergency department data based on pesticide-related ICD-9 CM codes. The 

purpose of this pilot project is to determine: 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. To date, INHS has deployed the 

technical tools needed for case extraction and secure automated electronic 

transmission of the data to DOH. Test data have been successfully transmitted in 

HL7 format via the DOH Public Health Reporting of Electronic Data system. 

24 PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Recommendation 2 DOH will provide updates to PIRT on activities related 

to the NIOSH funded project “Identifying preventable 

causes of pesticide-related illness among agricultural 

workers.” 

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts/Cynthia Lopez 

In July of 2005, DOH received funds from NIOSH to conduct a five-year study 

entitled Identifying Preventable Causes of Pesticide-Related Illness Among 

Agricultural Workers. The purpose of this study is to identify and track existing 

pesticide risks to workers in the agricultural sector by expanding DOH case 

investigations and analysis of specific, common exposure scenarios, including 

drift and exposures due to inadequate personal protective equipment practices. 

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 its prevention activities. 

In June 2006, a DOH representative presented to the PIRT panel on the results 

of year one grant activities. In year one, DOH Pesticide Program staff tested a 

new set of coding to track preventable causes of reported illness. In 2003 

through 2004, there were 131 occupational exposures associated with 

agricultural pesticide use (the data set included Definite, Probable, Possible, and 

Suspicious cases). The two leading exposure factors were problems with 

personal protective equipment (PPE) and pesticide drift. Forty-six of the 131 

cases (35%) were either missing a required piece of PPE or were wearing PPE 

improperly. Factors associated with lack of required PPE included: wearing 

sunglasses or regular prescription glasses instead of approved eye PPE, lack of 

training/supervision of handlers, and handler unaware of any PPE provided by 

employer. Year two work will focus on exploring the root causes of PPE problems 

with follow-up research interviews. The research interviews will be conducted by 

DOH staff outside the Pesticide Program and will test sensitive questions about 

root cause that the program will consider adding to their interviews in subsequent 

years. 

Agricultural drift continued to be a problem for workers and nearby residents. 

There were 13 agricultural drift incidents associated with 30 DDP illnesses or 

injuries in 2005. Drift data are described in detail on page 79. Insecticides, such 

as chlorpyrifos and azinphos-methyl, and fungicides, such as copper hydroxide 

and sulfur based products were most commonly associated with reported illness. 

The majority of incidents were associated with ground sprayers in tree fruit 

operations. Few other underlying factors for drift were identified from DOH 

investigations. WSDA, DOH, and L&I will collaborate in 2007 to develop a 

common checklist to be used in drift investigations. These will include: more 

detail on type of equipment and equipment settings, more detail on local weather 

conditions, distance of documented drift, use of drift retardant in the tank mix, 

and use of best management practices in the application. The goal of this joint 

effort is to collect data to support adoption of new technologies and best 

management practices. 

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 25
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 

At the November 2006 PIRT meeting, WSDA’s Summary of WSDA Authority and 

Activities in Schools Related to Pesticide Use was distributed to the PIRT panel. 

The document gives a synopsis of results of pesticide-use inspections of 116 

school districts in 2006, with information on school districts’ level of compliance 

for pesticide tracking and usage requirements. In addition, the summary cites 

factors that have contributed to safer pesticide use in schools and makes 

recommendations to the Washington State Board of Health (WSBOH) for 

improving the system for school pesticide usage. 

This will serve as a valuable resource for further work on evaluating schools’ 

compliance with pesticide tracking and usage requirements in 2007, and for PIRT 

to comment on the WSBOH draft rule on school environmental health in 2007. 

Recommendation 4 PIRT panel will assemble recommendations to EPA on 

revision of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). 

Lead: Pam Edwards 

PIRT received preliminary draft documents on the WPS from the EPA, which 

were unavailable for public discussion. PIRT will formulate and submit 

recommendations for revisions to the EPA during the public comment period in 

2007. 

Potential regulatory 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. 

26 PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Under WPS, the PIRT panel also discussed inert ingredients and labels, since 

those can and do affect appropriate personal protective equipment and pesticide 

illness emergency response and treatment. Discrepancies between the material 

safety data sheets and product labels can also create problems in medical 

treatment. The Panel also reviewed what seems to be a possible trend toward 

the requirement of long-sleeved shirts and pants as PPE. These items are 

specifically exempt from the WPS and do not have to be supplied by the 

employer, thus shifting the cost burden to the employee. 

Recommendation 5 PIRT panel 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 Annual Report. 

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts/Cynthia Lopez 

In 2005, as in past years, the leading crops associated with reported pesticide 

exposure cases are tree fruits, 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. 

Tree fruit industry pesticide incidents are detailed in the DOH section of this 

report. 

A report by the L&I-convened Science Advisory Committee, Final Report on 

Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2004 – 2006

(http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/2004-

06ChESACreport.pdf) found that the majority of serum cholinesterase 

depressions coincide with heavy pesticide use periods for chlorpyrifos and other 

related agents. The vast majority of depressions were from orchard fruit 

operations using airblast pesticide application methods. The number of pesticide 

handling hours is not a good predictor of pesticide overexposure. Other factors 

such as type, concentration and formulations of pesticides used, splash 

incidents, PPE use, and personal behaviors during pesticide handling influence 

cholinesterase activity. 

During the panel discussion on the cholinesterase monitoring rule at the June 

2006 PIRT meeting in Yakima, members of the agricultural community gave their 

observations on factors contributing to pesticide overexposure. Details can be 

found under in the section on Eastside PIRT Meeting in Yakima, page 28. 

Recommendation 6 PIRT will continue to compile data related to drift and 

report on member agencies’ drift reduction efforts. 

PIRT will continue to work on setting up a Washington 

Symposium on Drift. 

Lead: Ann Wick 

Highlight on Pesticide Drift, page 79, presents detailed drift data and analyses for 

2004 and 2005. 

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 27
At the PIRT panel’s suggestion, Washington State University (WSU) and WSDA 

sponsored a workshop on application technologies for tree fruit. The Orchard 

Spray Application Field Forum took place in Cashmere, Washington on 

March 31, 2006. The workshop, which included a demonstration of an airblast 

sprayer, highlighted the challenges and limitations associated with current 

technology related to pesticide drift. 

In 2006, WSDA, WSU, and the Tree Fruit Research Commission developed 

plans to hold a Washington Symposium on Spray Drift Labeling for Orchards in 

spring 2007. This meeting will be highly publicized, and numerous interested 

parties and stakeholders are invited to attend. During last year’s Orchard Spray 

Application Field Forum, pesticide labels and state restrictions generated 

significant dialogue. The intent of the 2007 orchard drift symposium will be to 

evaluate issues related to label drift statements, state regulations, and how they 

are enforced in Washington. The tentative agenda includes presentations by an 

EPA product manager to discuss risk mitigation language. A chemical company 

product manager will present additional language requested on labels to ensure 

efficacy and protect from liability. WSDA will present its enforcement 

responsibilities and policies related to state regulations and label compliance. 

WSDA is also working with WSU to provide better support to Washington aerial 

applicators so they can pattern test their aircraft annually. Cliff Weed (Pesticide 

Management Compliance Manager, WSDA) and Carol Ramsay (Pesticide 

Education Specialist, WSU) are in the process of garnering funds to purchase 

DropScan for pattern testing and assessing droplet spectra released from 

aircraft. WSU is also seeking additional funds to update the fluorometer owned 

by University of Idaho for spray pattern testing. In 2007, WSU will be participating 

in 2007 fly-in clinics to become more knowledgeable. WSU and AWAA 

(Association of Washington Aerial Applicators) plan to host a multi-day fly-in 

clinic. Dr. Dennis Gardisser, an expert on aerial agricultural chemical application, 

has been invited to participate in the equipment configuration assessments. 

Recommendation 7 The PIRT panel will review and report on member 

agencies’ independent strategies to reduce pesticide 

incidents based on the combined PIRT data. 

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts/Cynthia Lopez 

In 2006, each PIRT agency conducted pesticide incident prevention activities. 

Details of these activities are listed in agency’s Prevention Activities Section in 

the following Agency Summary Reports. 

During the November PIRT meeting, DOH, and WSDA highlighted some of their 

prevention efforts for the PIRT panel, as follows. The DOH Pesticide Program 

website has been enhanced for health care providers to better support 

recognition and management of pesticide-related illnesses. WSDA educates the 

general public outside of the agricultural community about safe pesticide use and 

promptly posts web information on pertinent pesticide issues. WSDA is working 

on displaying current pesticide application licenses online, to ensure that only 

properly licensed applicators can obtain and apply the most harmful pesticides. 

28 PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
In addition, WSDA worked in conjunction with WSU to construct a new urban 

Structural Pest Management Research and Demonstration facility, the only 

training structure of its kind in the western United States. The facility will provide 

pest managers and inspectors with hands-on experience identifying wood 

destroying organisms, the types of damage they cause, and conditions that favor 

infestation. 

Several PIRT agencies (WSDA, Ecology, DOH, and WSU) also worked together 

on creating a web resource to improve safety of insect control around the home. 

This new module joins a module on integrated pest management in schools on 

the Urban Pest Education Strategy Team (UPEST) website at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/upest/household.html. 

Recommendation 8 PIRT will continue to review the activities of the Medical 

Monitoring program for agricultural workers who handle 

cholinesterase-inhibiting insecticides. 

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts/Cynthia Lopez

The activities of the Cholinesterase Monitoring Program for 2006 are described in 

detail in the L&I Section of this report. There were periodic updates on the 

program at PIRT meetings throughout 2006. In May, 2006, the panel wrote a 

letter to Gary Weeks, director of L&I, with recommendations on L&I’s proposed 

changes to the monitoring program in 2007. This letter can be found in Appendix 

F. 

Recommendation 9 PIRT will continue to monitor for any increase in 

pesticide incidents related to control of mosquitoes. 

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts/Cynthia Lopez

In 2006, there were three confirmed human cases of West Nile Virus (WNV) that 

were acquired in Washington State, the first such cases found in the state. In 

addition, six horses and 13 birds were reported positive for WNV by the Zoonotic 

Disease Program, the DOH program responsible for tracking WNV. There were 

no WNV-positive mosquito pools this year. 

The DOH Pesticide Program 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. A DOH database query brought up six mosquito events in 2005. 

Table 6 summarizes DOH cases associated with mosquito control, from 2002 

through 2005. 

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 29
Table 6. DOH Cases* Associated with Mosquito Control, 2002 – 2005 

2002 2003 2004 2005 

Adult mosquito control 3 4 2 4 

Larval mosquito control 0 0 0 0 

Mosquito repellent 1 6 4 2 

* 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.

There may be an increase in repellent incidents in upcoming years as West Nile 

Virus follows the same course as it has in other states. WPC has more repellent 

cases than DOH, as their database also includes incidents where people don’t 

see health care providers. 

Recommendation 10 PIRT members will continue to 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

Recommendation 10 is ongoing, and will be carried forward to 2007. 

Recommendation 11 The PIRT panel will identify available data on 

residential and agricultural pesticide use. PIRT will 

examine and report on the costs and benefits of 

gathering this data. 

Lead: Steve Gilbert 

Steve Gilbert provided information to the PIRT panel on data sources for 

pesticide use/purchase information and on the website for Oregon State 

Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS). Oregon’s 

website will be a good resource for Washington, as the two states have 

demonstrated similar pesticide usage. He will present the data from Oregon in 

early 2007. 

Other Panel Activities for 2006 

Eastside PIRT Meeting in Yakima 

The June meeting in Yakima is highlighted because is it planned for and highly 

attended by the agricultural community. At this meeting in Yakima, Dr. Dave 

Kalman, chair of the Cholinesterase (ChE) Scientific Advisory Committee, gave 

an overview of the Cholinesterase Monitoring Rule and a synopsis of data 

obtained from the cholinesterase monitoring program and analyzed by the 

Scientific Advisory Committee. Representatives of the agricultural business and 

farm worker communities attended the meeting. The ensuing discussion provided 

an opportunity to share their perspective on factors contributing to cholinesterase 

30 PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
depression. Participants emphasized the need for improvements in training and 

oversight related to safety procedures. They related stories of improper or 

inadequate use of PPE, such as reuse of contaminated clothing after the worker 

experienced a cholinesterase depression. Problems with use of respirator filters 

were identified: pesticide handlers did not use a filter or did not change one when 

necessary, used an incorrect filter for the application, or didn’t know how to take 

the respirator apart to clean it. Since these incidents are common in the 

agricultural community, it would be helpful to have a central place to aggregate 

this information. Workers should also have ongoing instruction on the purpose of 

cholinesterase monitoring and what it entails, and should receive their test 

results. 

Other suggestions focused on having farm workers and the Hispanic 

communities take a more active role in training and decision making. For 

example, a bilingual pesticide safety instructor or investigator may encounter 

more barriers in training than a person born in the Hispanic culture. One of the 

larger agricultural companies employs a dedicated trainer of Hispanic origin, who 

is familiar with L&I and WSDA standards. This company has had a low rate of 

cholinesterase depression. 

Panel members noted that the decrease in the number of program participants in 

2006 could be related to many factors including: decreased use of 

organophosphates by growers, decreased organophosphate handling hours, 

workers not perceiving an ongoing benefit of the testing program, worker concern 

about confidentiality, employers not perceiving a benefit, and not encouraging 

employees to participate. Panel members and other meeting participants 

expressed concern about transferring cholinesterase testing from the 

Washington State Public Health Lab in 2007 to a private laboratory, and its effect 

on analytical quality, consistency, and cost of blood work. 

An important benefit of the monitoring program is that it has helped to identify 

existing problems with worker training. There has been an improvement in 

workplace handling over the past three years. There are many challenges 

associated with determining the cause of depressions. 

Additional topics from the June meeting include: 

• Clarification of WSDA and L&I roles in the Administration of the Worker 

Protection Standard, presented by Cliff Weed (WSDA) and Gabrielle 

Toutonghi (L&I), giving information on the roles and responsibilities of 

their agencies regarding the administration of the Worker Protection 

Standard. 

• DOH Year One Progress on Study on Preventable Causes of 

Farmworker Illnesses, presented by Barbara Morrissey (DOH), 

describing the Pesticide Program’s first year findings from a NIOSHfunded grant for identification of the preventable causes of farm worker 

illnesses. 

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 31
Presentation from Mark Calkins on Meeting Laws and 

Procedures Relevant to PIRT 

At the October 19, 2006 PIRT meeting, Mark Calkins, Assistant Attorney General 

for DOH, presented resources to help PIRT understand meeting laws, make 

decisions, and run more efficient and effective meetings. Mr. Calkins, who has 

extensive experience with laws governing state agency boards and commissions, 

gave an overview of meeting laws and procedures relevant to PIRT, including the 

Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) and RCW 70.104, which created PIRT. 

He also provided the following: Overview of Meeting Laws and Procedures 

Relevant to PIRT (with questions and answers for commonly encountered issues 

for meetings and actions by advisory boards and commissions - as applied to the 

PIRT), the Condensed Robert’s Rules of Order (to promote fairness, consistency, 

and efficiency in the conduct of meetings) and Suggested Guidelines for Meeting 

Minutes. PIRT approved the latter two documents for use as official guidelines for 

conducting future meetings. 

Earlier in the year, Mr. Calkins wrote a memo to PIRT clarifying the Panel’s 

Scope of Authority when PIRT makes recommendations and statements of 

support on pesticide issues. 

Letter of Support for Dr. Matt Keifer’s Research on Causes of 

Cholinesterase Depression 

PIRT wrote a letter in support a research proposal for NIOSH submission by Dr. 

Matt Keifer, Associate Professor at University of Washington’s Department of 

Occupational and Health Sciences. The purpose of the study was to identify 

factors that put pesticide handlers at risk for cholinesterase depression. The 

study will also be looking at whether a genetic factor predisposes a worker to 

cholinesterase depression. Researchers will compare the importance of various 

parameters in causing cholinesterase to be depressed, and will be analyzing the 

data throughout the four-year study to give feedback to the workers, growers, 

and clinics. 

A second study will evaluate the use of a portable cholinesterase testing kit to 

potentially replace the laboratory methodology, and develop methods to verify 

whether an identified depression is a true depression or an artifact. It is hoped 

that this project will reduce the cost and complexity of cholinesterase monitoring. 

The Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center, which Dr. Keifer codirects, will be working with clinics that supply cholinesterase services, 

agricultural growers and workers. 

A copy of this letter is in Appendix F. 

Letter to L&I on Recommendations for Cholinesterase Monitoring Program 

The PIRT panel submitted a letter to Gary Weeks, director of L&I, expressing 

concerns about the department’s proposed changes to the cholinesterase 

monitoring program. L&I planned to end its practice of focused investigation of 

workplaces where employees have had a potential overexposure to pesticides, 

and to transfer cholinesterase analytical testing from the state public health 

laboratory to a private laboratory. PIRT members felt that these changes would, 

32 PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
for a number of reasons, compromise the monitoring program’s ability to 

recognize and correct causes of overexposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting 

pesticides. The Panel recommended that L&I implement a long-term process to 

monitor quality of the cholinesterase program, with six specific core activities for 

accomplishing this. The letter also called for ongoing involvement of the 

Stakeholder and Scientific Advisory Committees, and for continuing publication of 

an annual report on cholinesterase monitoring. 

A copy of this letter is in Appendix F. 

Letter Requesting Update on Pilot Project Related to Modification of 

General Pesticide Rules WAC, 16-228 

In June 2006, PIRT sent a letter to WSDA requesting an update on the status of 

a pilot project related to a proposed modification to the General Pesticide Rule, 

WAC 16-228. The modified rule would require notification of aerial, airblast, 

fumigation or overhead pesticide use when the application site is within one mile 

of schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and adult and child daycare facilities. This 

was a follow up to a letter the PIRT sent in 2005 to WSDA, endorsing adoption of 

this modification to the General Pesticide Rules. 

A copy of this letter is in Appendix F. 

Letter to EPA Administrator: Support for petition to disclose inert 

ingredients on pesticide labels 

In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 15 states submitted a petition to the 

EPA requesting that the agency modify its rules on pesticide labeling to require 

that manufacturers disclose inert ingredients in their products. Currently, 

pesticide manufacturers need only reveal the active ingredients in their 

formulations. Petitioners identified 381 substances used as inert ingredients, 

listed as hazardous chemicals by various statutory authorities. The attorneys 

general urged the EPA to make regulatory changes requiring disclosure of these 

hazardous chemicals when used as inert ingredients. If the EPA cannot or will 

not require this, the petition requests that the agency act on some subset of 

these chemicals. 

PIRT sent a letter to the EPA in support of this petition, acknowledging that full 

disclosure of inert ingredients is not currently feasible, but recommending that the 

EPA work toward this in the near future. Disclosure of ingredients is important for 

health professionals in diagnosing illnesses related to pesticide exposure, for 

ensuring data quality in states that track pesticide-related health issues, and 

because pesticide consumers have a right to know what they are purchasing and 

using. 

A copy of this letter is in Appendix F. 

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 33

Agriculture 

Washington State Department of Agriculture’s summary of pesticide-related complaint 

investigations during 2005. 

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 it receives concerning possible pesticide 

misuse, storage, sales, and distribution; applicator licensing; and, building 

structure inspections for wood destroying organisms. The agency also inspects 

marketplaces, importers, manufacturers, and pesticide application sites for 

compliance with state and federal laws and regulations. 

Complaints 

During 2005, WSDA investigated 193 complaints (Table 7). After investigation, 

WSDA determined that 117 (61%) complaints involved pesticide applications and 

71 complaints (37%) were unrelated to actual applications. In the remaining five 

complaints, the application status was unknown. Examples of complaints 

unrelated to applications are structural inspection or licensing complaints. There 

were 113 violations associated with the 193 complaints. Two of the 193 cases 

were referred to other enforcement agencies for action. Appendix C lists all 

WSDA pesticide-related complaint investigations for 2005. 

Table 7. WSDA Complaints and Violations, 2001 – 2005 

Year Total Complaints Violations 

2001 225 152 (68%) 

2002 255 169 (66%) 

2003 222 151 (68%) 

2004 200 122 (61%) 

2005 193 113 (59%) 

Location of Complaints 

There were significant differences in population, types of pest problems, and the 

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

general, western Washington complaints were about structural pest inspections 

(SPI), homeowner complaints about drift, intentional misuse, and complaints 

about unlicensed applicators. In 2005, the number of complaints investigated for 

SPI’s decreased significantly from previous years. Most eastern Washington 

complaints were about agricultural applications and drift. Drift continues to be 

one of the most frequent types of complaint involving pesticide applications. 

Licensing and Structural Inspections were the most frequent non-pesticide 

application complaints. With the exception of drift, complaints in 2005 covered 

more diverse topics than in previous years. 

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 35
In 2005, 123 (64%) of complaint investigations occurred in eastern Washington 

and 70 (36%) in western Washington. Four complaints were from multiple 

counties in western Washington and one complaint was from multiple counties in 

eastern Washington. Figure 2 shows the number of complaints by county for 

2005. 

Figure 2. Number of WSDA Complaints by County, 2005 

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

0-5 

6-10 

11-20 

Pend 

Oreille

Grant

Adams

Chelan 

21+ 

n = 193 

Table 8 lists the counties with the most complaint investigations from 2001 

Table 8. WSDA Counties the Most Complaints, 2001 5 

through 2005. 

 with – 200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

King 21 Spokane 28 King 23 King 28 Spokane 22 

Grant 20 King 27 Pierce 22 Grant 20 King 20 

Spokane 20 Yakima 26 Grant 19 Spokane 17 Chelan 18 

Yakima 18 Thurston 17 Spokane 19 Benton 15 Grant 16 

Benton 13 Pierce 17 Yakima 13 Yakima 15 Yakima 12 

Pierce 12 Chelan 16 Benton 12 Walla Walla 11 Douglas 11 

Lewis 11 Grant 16 Chelan 12 Pierce 11 Pierce 10 

Thurston 10 Multiple 9 Clark 11 Snohomish 10 Benton 8 

Multiple 10 Chelan 8 

Response Time 

In 2005, WSDA responded within one day for 186 (96%) of the 193 complaints. 

100 percent of the 25 human exposure complaints were investigated within 24 

al 

hours, as required by law. 

Nature of Complaints 

Complaints for 2005 were categorized according to the nature of the initial 

complaint received. The categorization of complaints for 2005 is shown in 

Figure 3. Investigation may find the complaint not valid, substantiate the initi

complaint, or identify additional violations. For example, an initial complaint 

36 Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
concerns a possible drift. When the agency investigates, it may determine that 

drift did not occur, but may find that 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, careless, and negligent” or for record keepin

violations. When complaints are associated with numerous possible violatio

the most serious complaint is used to categorize the case. For example, a 

complaint involving human exposure caused by drift from application by an 

unlicensed applicator would be categorized as human exposure even if th

final outcome of the case was a Notice of Correction for record keeping. 

However, in general, the initial complaint is a fairly reliable indicator

g 

ns, 

e only 

 of the final 

outcome of the case and reflects the concerns of the complainant. 

Figure 3. WSDA Nature of Initial Complaints by Number, 2005 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Drift

Human Exposure

License

Misuse

Structural Pest Inspect

Direct

Disposal

Distribution

In 2005, WSDA received 76 general complaints about drift and 22 complaints 

specifically about human exposure due to drift. There were 19 complaints a

drift to property or vehicles and 24 crop-related drift complaints (Table 9). 

Pesticides moving off-target appears to be one of the major reasons why 

complaints were registered with WSDA. As in previous years, many of these 

complaints were not substantiated as the damage seen was due to drought, 

insects or frost, rather than pesticide drift. Non-agricultural complaints from a

applications generally concerned damage to o

bout 

ctual 

rnamentals from commercial 

ceived 

nts about 

improper SPI licenses or records). One bee kill was reported in 2005. 

applications or from a neighbor’s application. 

Non-licensed individuals and faulty structural inspections are two other areas 

where WSDA received numerous complaints (Table 9). In 2005, WSDA re

22 complaints about improper or no licensing, 15 complaints about direct 

misapplications, and 17 complaints specific SPI (in addition to complai

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 37
Table 9. Initial Complaints, WSDA Cases, 2005. 

Complaints 

Animal death 1 Drift to pasture 1 

Animal exposure - direct 1 Drift to property 10 

Animal exposure - drift 1 Exam fraud 1 

Bee kill 1 Failure to provide reports/records 3

Bird deaths - misuse 1 Faulty Structural Pest Inspection report 17 

Direct - misuse 9 Human exposure - direct 3 

Direct to crop 2 Human exposure - drift 22 

Direct to plants 1 Human exposure - notification 1 

Direct to property 1 Improper PPE 1 

Disposal 3 Ineffective application 1 

Distribution 9 License 22 

Drift 2 Misuse 25 

Drift to car 4 Notification 4 

Drift to crop 24 Records 4 

Drift to daycare 1 Spill of pesticide -treated grain 1 

Drift to garden 1 Unsecured containers 1 

Drift to house 3 Use inspection, WPS 1 

Drift to ornamentals 10 

For 2005 cases, the initial complaint was compared to actions taken by the 

department to see if the violation was related to the complaint; that is, whether 

the complaint was valid. Action may not have been taken on the case even 

though the complaint was valid. For instance, if the violator could not be identified 

for a drift case, no action could be taken. Eighty-three (43%) of the 193 cases 

had the original complaint verified (i.e., the complaint was valid). Action was 

taken on an additional 30 cases, but these actions were unrelated to the original 

complaint. For example, the complaint may have been about misuse but, after 

investigation, the applicator was cited for failure to keep records. 

Drift 

There were 76 general complaints about drift; WSDA took action on 44 (58%) of 

these. Five cases had drift verified, but no action was taken (typically because 

the source could not be proven). There were 22 complaints about drift to humans 

with nine (41%) verified. 

In 2005, the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) 

conducted a national survey on drift for the years 1996-1998 and 2002-2004. The 

data were limited, as not all states participated in the survey and less information 

was available for 2004. However, it is of interest to compare Washington State 

percentages on drift to averaged national percentages. Data for 2005 indicate 

that Washington generally takes a slightly higher level of enforcement action 

(58%) versus the six-year national average (37%) (Table 10). Comparing 2005 

national and Washington data shows that Washington has about the same 

percentage of agriculture drift complaints, but fewer of the Washington drift cases 

are from aerial applications. 

38 Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 10. Comparison of Washington State to National Drift Survey 

Enforcement Actions Taken National Survey Washington State 

1996 808 (34%) 

1997 986 (42%) 

1998 742 (32%) 

2002 670 (40%) 

2003 589 (35%) 

2004 610 (36%) 

2005 76 (58%) 

Drift Verified but No Enforcement 

2005 11% 7% 

Target Application was Agriculture 

2005 70% 76% 

Aerial Applications 

2005 34% 17% 

Specific herbicides (phenoxys and glyphosate) associated with drift in 

Washington were similar to those seen nationally. However, the types of 

insecticides (spinosad, azinphos-methyl and carbaryl, instead of malathion) were 

different compared to national data. 

Application Methods 

In 2005, WSDA received 14 complaints about aerial applications, one 

chemigation complaint, one fumigation complaint, 92 complaints about ground 

applications, 68 complaints about items other than an application, and 17 

complaints where the application method was undetermined or unknown. 

Violations 

Complaint investigations may result in a determination that a violation of state or 

federal laws or rules has occurred. During 2005, about 59 percent of WSDA 

complaint investigations resulted in some type of violation. Most violations were 

not severe in nature (see Table 14 on page 42) and most violators were 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. 

• 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. 

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 39
• Structural Pest Inspections (SPI) A change in law established a separate 

definition for a license for this work. Replaces the previous Wood 

Destroying Organism 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 complaints with violations by type of activity from 2001 through 

2005. 

Table 11. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2001 – 2005 

Activity 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Agricultural 63 69 39 42 39 

Commercial/Industrial 27 31 38 17 36 

Structural Pest Inspection 28 16 33 22 8 

Residential (non commercial) 11 13 7 5 4 

Right-of-Way 8 3 5 5 5 

Other (licenses, records, etc.) 15 37 29 31 21 

Total Violations 152 169 151 122 113 

Figure 4 identifies the violations by type of activity for 2005. 

Figure 4. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2005 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Agricultural

Commercial/Industrial

Other (Licenses, records, etc.)

Structural Pest Inspection

Right-of-way

Residential (Non-Commercial)

Violations alone do not give an accurate picture of pesticide exposures. For 

example, if drift occurs and the violator cannot be proven, no action can be 

taken. Sometimes the applicator has moved away, often out of state, and cannot 

be located. However, violations generally give a good representative picture of 

the validity and severity of pesticide incidents. 

40 Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Type of License in Complaints with Violations 

In 2005, WSDA licensed approximately 4,300 commercial applicators and 

operators and over 10,800 private applicators. WSDA also issued approximately 

8,500 other individual license types for a total of nearly 24,000 licensees. 

Although WSDA licenses fewer commercial applicators 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. Further information about WSDA license 

types is available in Appendix D. 

In 2005, commercial applicators were involved in 50 complaints with 27 

violations. Private applicators were involved in 30 complaints with 23 violations. 

Unlicensed applicators were involved in 43 complaints with 32 violations. Most of 

these applicators were unlicensed and conducting structural pest inspections that 

required a licensed inspector (Figure 5). 

Figure 5. WSDA Type of Licensee Involved in Cases With and 

Without Violations, 2005 

0 10 20 30 40 50 6

Commercial Applicator

Unlicensed Applicator

Private Applicator

Structural Pest Inspection

Unknown

Public Operator

Dealer

Private Commercial

0

Violations No Violations

Agricultural Complaints 

In agriculture, most 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. For orchards, the most frequent complaints, 

as in previous years, involved applications to apples, followed by cherries and 

pears. The most frequent agricultural complaints in 2005 for a single crop were 

from applications to apples, most of these concerning possible drift or direct 

exposure to vehicles or property (Table 12). 

The most common complaint about agricultural applications was from drift. The 

second most common complaint was from misuse of products. 

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 41
Table 12 summarizes the most frequent target and complaint sites for 

investigations in which citations were issued for agricultural violations in 2005. 

Table 12. WSDA Agricultural Violations, 2005 

Most Frequent Target Site* Most Frequent Complaint Site**

Apples 8 Cars/property 13

Cherries 4 People 6

Pears 2 Wheat 3

Orchard 1 Apples 2

Potatoes 4 Grapes 2

Potatoes 2

* Target site is the intended target for the pesticide. 

**.Complaint site is where the pesticide landed or the type of complaint filed.

Non-Agricultural Complaints 

In 2005, investigations due to licenses, recordkeeping or distribution were the 

most frequent non-agricultural complaints. Generally, complainants felt that the 

individual using pesticides was not properly licensed for the work being done. 

The most frequent type of violation cited by WSDA was failure to keep accurate 

or adequate records (for instance, did not record conditions conducive to rot or 

the presence of insects) and failure to obtain the proper license type for the 

application. 

Complaints about drift from commercial lawn care applications were again 

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 

2005. 

Table 13. WSDA Non-Agricultural Violations, 2005 

Most Frequent Target Site* Most Frequent Complaint Site**

Lawn/ornamentals 4 License/Records/Sales 22 

Right of way 4 Structural Pest Inspection 19 

Weeds 4 Ornamentals/trees 14 

Animals 2 

People 2 

* Target site is the intended target for the pesticide. 

** Complaint site is where the pesticide landed or the type of complaint filed.

Complaint distribution has been consistent over the years and points to the need 

for greater education of applicators, particularly for drift reduction techniques. 

Some violations may reflect the transient nature of employment or lack of 

applicator training and some, particularly for SPI’s, may reflect willful fraud. 

Economic pressure to sell real estate may encourage inspectors to overlook 

possible wood-destroying organism conditions. The number of preventable 

violations points to the continuing need for a strong agency enforcement 

program. Given that the estimated number of applications is in the hundreds of 

thousands, the number of complaints directed to the department for serious 

offenses is relatively small. 

42 Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
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 by ignoring environmental conditions. 

An application of atrazine and alachlor to corn drifted to an adjacent greenhouse and 

affected 15 workers. All complained of exposure and one went to the hospital for 

treatment of symptoms. The owner of the greenhouse had talked to the applicator about 

stopping the application because of wind direction. The applicator stopped briefly, and 

then resumed spraying. Residue was detected on a worker’s clothing and around the 

greenhouse site. The applicator was fined $1800 for a faulty, careless and negligent 

application inconsistent and contrary to pesticide labels. Drift of the product was 

probably due to wind direction. 

Children and Farmworker Cases 

In 2005, children were involved directly or indirectly in four cases. 

• One case involved a ground application of insecticides applied to 

cherries that drifted onto a school bus with children on board. The driver 

complained of possible symptoms but the children did not. The bus and 

clothing of those affected had been washed before WSDA could 

investigate. DOH was also unable to investigate as there was no 

evidence remaining. WSDA issued a Notice of Correction based on 

testimony only. 

• Another case involved an application of an insecticide to hops. The 

insecticide drifted onto a daycare property, but there was no evidence 

that children had been exposed. WSDA issued a Notice of Correction. 

• One case involving one child was unsubstantiated. The individual 

reporting the incident thought that a neighbor’s application affected her 

child’s health, but there was no evidence of drift. 

• The other case involving one child was a drift of insecticide from an 

airblast application to apples. The insecticide drifted on an adult and 

child in a car, who said they became nauseated and developed a rash. 

They saw a doctor but did not inform the doctor about the possible 

exposure. DOH classified the case as “probable.” Residue was found in 

the car air filter (the car had been washed) and on site vegetation. 

WSDA issued a Notice of Intent. 

Farmworkers were involved in three cases with a total of 18 individuals. 

• One of these cases is described in the text box above (An application of 

atrazine...). 

• Another case involved a drift of insecticides from a neighboring orchard 

onto two people thinning apples. The workers went to a health clinic 

with nausea and respiratory symptoms. WSDA issued a Notice of 

Intent. 

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 43
• The third case was a follow-up investigation on numerous Worker 

Protection Standard violations. A Notice of Intent was issued. 

Severity of Reported Complaints 

The WSDA rates the severity of a case after complaint investigation is complete. 

Table 14 gives a detailed description of each rating. As in previous years, the 

majority of complaints were assigned a severity rating of two or less. 

Table 14. Severity Rating of WSDA Complaint Cases, 2001 – 2005 

Rating 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Criteria 

0 23 

10% 

30 

12% 

22 

10% 

26 

14.5%

29 

15% 

Problem not due to pesticides and/or no 

cause determined; Structural Pest 

Inspection with no violations. 

1 71 

31.5% 

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". 

76 51 65 

32.5%

77 

30% 23% 40% 

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; 

Structural Pest Inspection faulty 

inspections; DOH classified "possible". 

72 114 112 83 

41.5%

54 2 32% 45% 50% 28% 

Minor short-term health symptoms (rash, 

eye irritation, shortness of breath, dizzy, 

nausea, vomiting); bee kills of less than 25 

hives; minor fish kills; economic plant 

damage under $1000; evidence of 

deliberate economic fraud; DOH classified 

"probable". 

35 31 22 18 16 3 15.5% 12% 10% 9% 8% 

20 3 

1% 

13 

6% 

8 

4% 

17 4 9% 9% 

Short-term veterinary or hospital care; bee 

kills of greater than 25 hives; significant 

fish kills; significant economic plant 

damage (over $1000); environmental 

damage; illness involving children; DOH 

classified "probable". 

5 4 

2% 

1 2 

1% 0 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". 

0.4% 

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

Total 225 255 222 200 193 

44 Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
In 2005, four of the 17 cases with a severity rating of “4” were herbicide drift to a 

susceptible crop, resulting in large financial losses. Three cases concerned drift 

to persons: two from insecticides and one from an herbicide tank mix. The 

remaining ten cases involved some type of pesticide misuse. Of these, four were 

deliberate (generally to remove obstructing vegetation), four had off-label use, 

and one was related to pesticide disposal. One case involved an insufficiently 

trained operator who was unable to shut off the end gun on a chemigation 

application. 

The following case is an example of an expensive mistake resulting from failure 

to verify the contents of an application tank.

A commercial landscape company had been hired to apply insecticides and fungicides to 

properties in the Spokane area. A new truck had been purchased by the company and 

had not yet been retrofitted with the specific couplings that would not allow herbicides to 

be loaded into insecticide/fungicide tanks. When the truck was reloaded, the technician 

saw that the coupler was the “herbicide” type and topped off the tank with a lawn 

herbicide and fertilizer. The driver was assigned this truck when his regular truck had a 

flat tire. Believing that the tank contained only insecticide/fungicide mix, he mistakenly 

treated 18 customers with the herbicide. The truck was assigned two days later to 

another driver whose regular truck had a pump leak. The tank was topped with the 

insecticide/fungicide mix and five more customers were treated. At this time the 

complaints started and the company realized they had a tank mix contamination. 

Twenty-three customers were affected and the company accepted full responsibility. To 

date, the company has spent over $16,000 on plant replacement, more costs are 

pending and one customer is still unsatisfied. WSDA issued a Notice of Intent. 

Type of Pesticide Involved 

In 2005, herbicides were involved in 84 complaints and insecticides in 48 

complaints. There were relatively fewer complaints about other pesticides such 

as fungicides (10), fumigants (1), and rodenticides (1). This may be because 

there are more obvious detrimental effects from herbicide and insecticide misuse 

and because herbicides and insecticides are generally applied at a higher 

frequency with more power equipment over larger areas. The type of active 

ingredient involved in complaints differs when the WSDA office locations are 

compared (Figure 6). Approximately 50 percent of the complaints to the Yakima 

and Spokane offices are from herbicide use, approximately 50 percent to the 

Wenatchee office are from insecticide use and approximately 50 percent to the 

Olympia office are from non-pesticide applications (generally house inspections). 

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 45
Figure 6. Type of Pesticide Used in WSDA Complaints by Location, 

2005 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yakima Olympia Wenatchee Moses Lake Spokane

Herbicide Insecticide Other None

Overall, complaints about applications in 2005 continue to show a greater var

of pesticides than seen in previous years. There were four complaints about 

azinphos-methyl drift and no complaints about endosulfan drift. Complaints on 

both products continue to decrease. Compared to previous years, herbicide drif

constitutes the greatest number of complaints. Applicators may be using more 

pest-specific products with a greater diversity of active ingredients and plac

less reliance on broad-spectrum pest control products. This change could 

increase the number o

iety 

t 

ing 

f single-product complaints, resulting in fewer, more 

he 

5). 

lity 

ticide. 

gredients Most Commonly Involved in WSDA 

5 

general, complaints. 

Two herbicides, glyphosate (20 complaints) and 2, 4-D (19 complaints), were t

most frequently reported active ingredients in 2005 investigations (Table 1

This is consistent with previous years’ numbers and probably reflects the 

frequency of use, use by unlicensed (untrained) applicators and the high visibi

of misuse of these products. Many complaints involved tank mixes of several 

products or complaints about drift from an unspecified or unknown pes

Table 15. Active In

Complaints, 200

Active Ingredient 

ous/Unknown 1

Diuron 4 

Glyphosate 20 

2,4-D/Phenoxy 19 

Miscellane 5 

Carbaryl 4 

46 Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Complaints reported to WSDA should be regarded as indicators of potential 

problem areas rather than a definitive summary of all misapplications. For 

example, drift involving products such as sulfur and kaolin (clay) may occur more 

often than reported. Such products are more identifiable. People may 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. 

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 (which could happen if several 

applicators were involved in the same investigation), both types are listed. 

The corrective actions taken in 2005 are listed in Table 16. (See Appendix D for 

definitions of the Enforcement Actions). 

Table 16. WSDA Agency Actions, 2001 – 2005 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

No action indicated 74 84 71 76 77 

Verbal warning 3 6 3 1 6 

Advisory letter/warning letter 4 8 8 4 9 

Notice of correction 111 127 116 98 76 

Notice of intent/administrative action 37 31 26 20 23 

Referred 2 2 0 2 2 

Total actions 231 258 224 201 193 

Other Agencies Involved 

WSDA works in cooperation with other state and local agencies 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 2005, WSDA consulted with other state, federal and local agencies, including 

local police, in 43 investigations. The agencies most frequently consulted were 

Department of Health (DOH) (21), Department of Ecology (Ecology) (6) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (4). One case was referred to the Yakama 

Indian Nation. 

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 47
WSDA Prevention Activities 2005 

In addition to investigations of possible pesticide misuse, WSDA inspects 

marketplaces, importers, manufacturers, and other pesticide users for 

compliance with state and federal laws and regulations; registers pesticides for 

standard and state specific uses; licenses pesticide applicators; administers 

recertification courses; conducts training on the Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard; administers a waste pesticide collection program; and, addresses 

groundwater issues that involve pesticides. 

Compliance

• Conducted 12 marketplace inspections to check for cancelled, 

suspended, unregistered products, and child-resistant packaging. 

• Conducted 67 agricultural use inspections to evaluate compliance with 

pesticide product labels, Worker Protection Standards, and equipment, 

licensing. 

• Conducted 18 dealer inspections to verify dealer licensing and check for 

misbranded, cancelled, and restricted use sales of pesticide products. 

• Conducted five 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 

• Initiated toxicological reviews of Special Local Needs, Section 18 

Emergency Exemptions and Experimental Use permits on certain highly 

toxic or very highly toxic pesticides. 

• Evaluated a number of spray adjuvants labeled for use on aquatic sites. 

Evaluations resulted in a request to Ecology to remove one adjuvant (R11) from the aquatic and nuisance weed NPDES permit and to add nine 

new adjuvants (Bond, Cygnet Plus, Exciter, Intensify, Interlock, 

Liberate, Magnify, Sinker and Tactic). The added adjuvants are less 

toxic to aquatic organisms. 

• Developed and mailed the annual pesticide newsletter, “Pesticide 

Notes,” to all licensed applicators. The newsletter focused heavily on 

worker safety issues and current pesticide problems. 

• Continued providing all day hands-on training in Spanish to pesticide 

handlers and a WPS Train the Trainer program to farm supervisors. 

Involved in preparing the agenda for the First Annual Governor’s 

Agricultural Safety Day and provided moderators and speakers. 

Increased the number of Spanish recertification meetings and provided 

up-to-date pesticide safety information. 

48 Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
• Continued outreach to Spanish speaking farmworkers on pesticide 

safety through radio programs, newsletters, training classes and 

presentations. 

• Initiated a project with the University of Washington’s Pacific Northwest 

Agricultural Safety and Health Center to determine the effectiveness of 

using fluorescent tracer and black lights as training tools to reduce 

pesticide exposures. 

• Developed Spanish language training manuals and applicator exams. 

Waste Pesticide Disposal 

• Collected and disposed of 136,367 pounds of unusable agricultural 

pesticides from 393 customers. This is an average of 347 pounds per 

customer. Since 1988, over 895 tons of pesticides have been collected 

and properly disposed of through this program. 

• 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 

• Developed a model for pesticide aquifer vulnerability maps for 

Washington State. 

• Participated in educational meetings on protecting groundwater from 

pesticides. 

• Revised a mapping project for use of groundwater depth in a statewide 

aquifer vulnerability assessment. 

• Completed development and loading of comprehensive pesticide/ 

groundwater database for all United States Geological Survey, 

Ecology, DOH and WSDA groundwater data from 1985 to present. 

This allows for accurate analysis of pesticide impacts to Washington 

groundwater over the past 20 years.

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 49

Ecology 

Washington State Department of Ecology’s summary of pesticide-related complaints from 

Spill Prevention and Toxics Cleanup programs, and aquatic pesticide permitting during 

2005. 

Background 

Multiple programs within the Department of Ecology (Ecology) are involved in 

pesticide-related activities. Ecology works with the 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 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 findings from the first three years of an 

ongoing cooperative study by Departments of Ecology and Agriculture, which 

investigates pesticide occurrence in salmonid-bearing streams.

Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program: 

Pesticide-Related Incidents 

Ecology’s Spill Program responds to pesticide-related complaints and is 

responsible for ensuring that damage from a spill is contained and cleaned up as 

quickly as possible. Ecology uses data from pesticide-related spills and 

complaints to identify where additional education is necessary to reduce impacts 

of pesticides on human health and the environment. Summaries of the Spill 

Program’s pesticide-related complaints for 2005 are provided in Appendix C. 

Table 17 lists the types of pesticide-related complaints received from 2001 

through 2005. Complaints can involve more than one category of concern. 

Table 17. Ecology Pesticide-Related Complaints, 2001 – 2005 

Type of complaint* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Pesticides threatening ground or surface water 11 23 13 10 23 

Pesticide disposal or waste concern 14 12 12 6 2 

Spills and fires 1 12 5 10 12 

Unsafe pesticide storage or handling 6 11 10 3 5 

* Complaints may involve more than one category.

Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 51
There were 39 pesticide-related complaints involving threats to air, water, and/or 

soil in 2005. These are listed in Appendix C. 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. When a complaint is resolved during initial contact and 

does not require technical assistance, investigation, or referral, it is 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. 

In 2005, 

• Five complaints were listed as “No follow-up” 

• Sixteen complaints were investigated 

• Nine complaints were referred to other agencies 

• Four complaints had both investigations and referrals 

Ecology responded within 24 hours for 27 (69%) of the 39 complaints in 2005. 

Only five complaints had a greater than 24-hour turnaround time. The agency 

does not have a legislative mandate for response time. Ecology investigated 19 

of the 39 complaints. 

Of the 39 pesticide-related complaints received by Ecology during 2005: 

• Five occurred in the agricultural environment 

• Fourteen involved commercial or industrial activities 

• Seven were reported by private citizens 

• Six were transportation-related (car, truck, boat) 

• Seven resulted from residential activities 

• Two resulted in potential exposure to humans 

• Seven required some form of cleanup or removal of materials 

• Four were referred to the Toxics Cleanup Program 

After the Ecology Spill Program responds and stabilizes the initial emergency, 

staff close the case if long-term impacts are unlikely. If long-term impacts are 

anticipated, the case is referred to another program within the agency. When 

indicated, Ecology refers complaints to other state or local agencies. In 2005, the 

Spill Program referred seven complaints involving pesticides to WSDA or 

Department of Transportation (one referral did not name recipient). Ecology 

immediately notified DOH of two incidents where humans were potentially 

exposed to pesticides. 

52 Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
The following two incidents are examples of pesticide-related complaints referred 

to the Spill Program. 

In July 2005, Ecology provided technical assistance when an incident occurred in Willapa 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge. An airboat carrying six people, 50 gallons of aquatic 

herbicide and 70 gallons of gasoline capsized and sank. There was no detected spill of 

the herbicide or gasoline. As the herbicide was intended for control of spartina in the bay, 

the release was not considered potentially hazardous. When divers recovered the boat, 

most of the gasoline was still in the tank. 

In April 2005, the Yakima volunteer fire crew responded to a storage shed fire burning in 

an orchard. Contents of the shed were unknown. The fire chief determined that the fire 

would be difficult to extinguish, pulled the firefighters away from the smoke and 

instructed them to allow the fire to burn. Putting water on such a fire would have been 

very dangerous for very little gain. When the shed had burned down to the three walls of 

mason bricks, firefighters applied high expansion foam, greatly reducing the amount of 

smoke produced. Ecology investigators notified Yakima County Health District of 

potential smoke impacts on neighbors. The site was referred to Ecology’s Toxics 

Cleanup Program for potential soil remediation. 

Toxics Cleanup Program: Contaminated Sites Containing 

Pesticides 

Ecology’s Toxics Cleanup Program 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. When a contaminated site is listed on the 

program’s Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites Report list, it stays on 

the list until it is cleaned up or requires no further action. A site may remain on 

the list for more than one year until either of these actions occurs. 

Ecology added 11 pesticide-contaminated sites to the Confirmed and Suspected 

Contaminated Sites Report in 2005 (Appendix E). Five of these were in Yakima 

County, and one each in Benton, Chelan, Clark, Cowlitz, King, and Skagit 

counties. Ecology designated four sites as active and undergoing cleanup, six as 

awaiting cleanup, and one as a non-active/remediated site that was cleaned up 

or required no further action. 

A total of 195 pesticide-contaminated sites were on the Confirmed and 

Suspected Contaminated Sites Report in 2005. Ninety-five sites remain active in 

the cleanup process at year’s end. These are listed in Appendix E. The status for 

all sites for 2005 is summarized in Table 18. 

Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 53
Table 18. Status of Sites Listed on Confirmed and Contaminated Sites 

Report, 2005 

Pesticide-contaminated sites 2005 

Sites undergoing cleanup at year’s end 95 

Sites with no further action needed 65 

Sites awaiting further investigation 35 

Cumulative pesticide-contaminated sites for the year 195 

Water Quality Program: Aquatic Pesticide Permit 

Ecology is delegated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

implement all federal water pollution control laws and regulations through the 

state’s laws. Implementation of laws and regulations includes issuance of 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 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 2005 

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/or native nuisance weeds in lakes and ponds. Products permitted 

include: diquat, endothall, 2,4-D (BEE), 2,4-D (DMA), fluridone, triclopyr, 

imazapyr and glyphosate. This permit covered approximately 50 lake projects in 

2005. Due to a settlement decision between the Washington Toxics Coalition and 

the WSDA, this permit was reissued in 2006 and now covers all in-lake activities 

(noxious weeds, which were previously covered by WSDA, nuisance plants, and 

algae). The new permit requires reporting, which will be included in next year's 

PIRT report. 

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 reissued in 

2006 and expires June 30, 2011. In 2005, 576 acres were treated with 4,536 

pounds of carbaryl. 

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. Treated areas are 

located throughout Washington. Permits are issued by WSDA in partnership with 

Ecology. Product totals are listed in Table 19. 

54 Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 19. Total Product Applied Under Noxious Weed NPDES Permit, 2005 

Product Gallons Pounds 

2, 4-D 78 1,335 

Diquat 54 N/A 

Fluridone 3 3,656 

Glyphosate 1,113 N/A 

Imazapyr 4,756 N/A 

Triclopyr 72 N/A 

Total product applied 6,076 4,991 

Fish Management NPDES Permit 

The Fish Management NPDES Permit is issued to the Washington State 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for fish management in Washington 

lakes. Currently, WDFW is allowed to use only the product rotenone for fish 

management. The five lakes in Table 20 were reported as treated during the 

spring and fall of 2005. 

Table 20. Total Product Applied Under Fish Management NPDES Permit, 

2005 

Water Body Gallons Pounds 

Burke Lake 15 4,455 

Big Green Lake 10 1,815 

Quincy Lake 15 2,530 

Rat Lake (Mouse Pond) 31 16,775 

Spectacle Lake 38 46,255 

Total product (Rotenone) applied 109 71,830 

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 97 Washington 

irrigation districts during the 2005 application season. The 16 districts include 81 

percent of the total irrigated land in Washington. The product totals are listed in 

Table 21. 

Table 21. Total Product Applied Under Irrigation District NPDES Permit, 

2005 

Product Gallons Pounds 

Acrolein 26,508. N/A 

Chelated copper* 2,175 N/A 

Copper sulfate* N/A 160,327 

Green Clean N/A 450 

Xylene 7,215 N/A 

Total product applied 35,898 160,777 

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

copper applied equals 41,077 pounds.

Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 55
Mosquito General NPDES Permit 

The number of groups treating for mosquitoes in Washington State rapidly 

increased in 2005 to prepare for the arrival of West Nile virus. 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 1 of the following year. Table 22 summarizes 

pesticide totals statewide from the 2005 application season. 

Table 22. Mosquito General NPDES Permit, 2005 

Product type Gallons Pounds 

Bacillus spaericus (H-5a5b) N/A 4,817 

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) granular/briquettes N/A 19,001 

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) liquid 8,584 N/A 

Methoprene briquettes N/A 2,005 

Methoprene granular N/A 154 

Methoprene liquid 494 N/A 

Methoprene pellets N/A 377 

Monomolecular film 73 N/A 

Paraffinic white mineral oil 199 N/A 

Total product applied 9,350 26,354 

Surface Water Monitoring 

The Departments of Ecology and Agriculture have a cooperative agreement for 

an ongoing study investigating pesticide occurrence in salmonid-bearing 

streams. Results of the first three years of the study, Surface Water Monitoring 

Program for Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing Streams 2003-2005, are available 

online at http//:www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0603036.html. 

Pesticide concentrations were measured in an urban drainage represented by 

Thornton Creek in the Cedar-Sammamish watershed, and in agricultural 

drainages represented by Marion Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring 

Creek in the Lower Yakima watershed. 

Temporal trends and potential impacts to aquatic species are investigated 

through comparison to: (1) EPA registration toxicological criteria for fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, and plants; (2) Washington State Water Quality Standards; and (3) 

EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. 

56 Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
A total of 51 pesticides and degradate compounds were detected in the urban 

and agricultural drainages. Ten of these (4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, azinphos methyl, 

carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, disulfoton, endosulfan sulfate, malathion, and 

oxyfluorfen) were above assessment criteria. Ninety-six percent of detections 

were below assessment criteria. In regards to the data collected from 2003-2005, 

the environmental effect of the residues detected have the potential to cause 

harm to invertebrate populations. Other than one malathion detection, none of 

the exceedances show direct effects to fish. WSDA is working with farmers to 

identify areas in their farming practices that may be contributing to these 

exceedances. 

Restriction or cancellation of chlorpyrifos and diazinon use during 2000-2004 

resulted in reduced detection frequency and magnitude of these compounds in 

Thornton Creek. 

Chlorpyrifos, malathion, and azinphos methyl were detected in all three 

agricultural drainages. Chlorpyrifos residues were detected in the spring in all 

agricultural drainages and in the fall in Marion Drain. Azinphos methyl and 

malathion detections occur when summer maximum temperatures may restrict 

Mid-Columbia summer steelhead (Endangered Species Act listed) occupation of 

monitored stream reaches. If summer steelhead are present, elevated water 

temperatures may make them more susceptible to pesticide toxicity. 

Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 57

Health 

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

during 2005. 

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 2005 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 Washington Poison Center (WPC), Department of Labor and Industry 

(L&I) Claims Administration Program, Washington State Department of 

Agriculture (WSDA), health care providers, and others (Figure 7). More than one 

agency may report the same illness event (incident). See Combined Agency 

Data on page 16 for a description of reporting requirements and patterns of 

referral between agencies. 

Figure 7. Source of Case Reports,* 2005 

n = 252 cases investigated

WPC and 

Health Care 

Providers (137)

WSDA (34)

Self, Family (6) 

Other (6)

L&I (84)

*Some cases were reported by more than one agency.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 59
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 individual saw a health care provider 

• the pesticide exposure occurred during the last three months 

• the pesticide exposure occurred in Washington State 

• the pesticide exposure was not intentional (e.g., 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. Electronic reporting provided an opportunity to expand reporting criteria 

to include these cases. From December 2004 through March 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 April 1, 2005. Details from the 

additional cases are described on page 60 in this report. 

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 the likelihood that symptoms 

reported are related to a pesticide exposure. Case classification is determined 

through documentation of the exposure, documentation of health effects, 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. 

60 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 23. Classification Criteria of Definite, Probable, and Possible 

Evidence of Exposure Evidence of Health Effects 

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. 

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, depressed cholinesterase activity). 

**Symptoms are subjective evidence of illness and are often not observable on examination (e.g,. 

headache, nausea, dizziness).

In 2005, 188 (75%) of the 252 reported cases were determined to be definitely, 

probably, or possibly related to pesticide exposure. These DPP cases are listed 

in Appendix C. This number does not include the WPC investigations. Figure 8 

illustrates the classification of cases for 2005. 

Figure 8. Classification of Cases, 2005 

Insufficient 

Information (18%)

Unlikely (4%)

Possible (36%)

Probable (19%)

Suspicious (4%)

Definite (19%)

n= 252 cases

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 61
The number of DPP cases for the years 2001 through 2005 is listed in Table 24. 

Table 24. Definite, Probable, and Possible Case (DPP) Classification, 2001 

– 2005 

Classification 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Definite 21 50 69 63 49 

Probable 51 60 53 55 48 

Possible 48 64 62 86 91 

Total DPP 120 174 184 204 188 

Percent DPP 48%* 64% 67% 76% 75% 

All Cases Reported 250 270 275 269 252 

* In 2002, DOH changed how cases are tracked. See narrative. 

Although the percentage of cases classified as DPP appears to have increased 

since year 2001, this is mostly an artifact of a change in how DOH tracks cases. 

Prior to 2002, cases that were investigated and 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 2005, 44 investigated cases were classified as insufficient information. 

Common reasons that cases are classified as insufficient information are 1) only 

one symptom was reported, or 2) DOH was unable to determine the type of 

pesticide involved, or 3) DOH could not sufficiently characterize the details of 

exposure (e.g., couldn’t reach patient for interview) or 4) medical records and/or 

spray records were inconsistent with the patient’s report of illness. None of these 

four conditions result in automatic insufficient information classification. The 

percentage of investigations classified as insufficient information has remained 

steady for the last four years. 

Nine cases were classified as suspicious, ten were classified as unlikely, and one 

was considered unrelated to pesticide exposure. 

62 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
These are examples of cases that DOH classified as suspicious, unlikely, or 

insufficient information to be related to pesticide exposure. 

Suspicious: A 60-year-old male spilled an undetermined amount of triazine herbicide 

in his garage. The next day he reported health effects wondering if the symptoms were 

related. He went to the local hospital for medical attention, though he reported he was 

feeling better at the time. 

Unlikely: A family-operated food store had a problem with flies, so a family member 

hung four pest strips from the 15-foot ceiling. The number of strips did not exceed the 

product label criteria for cubic feet placement. A 41-year-old male clerk said that within 

three weeks of the strips being hung, he developed numbness in his left hand and left 

toe. By the fourth week, the strips were removed and he felt better. He had no physical 

contact with the product. He sought medical attention. DOH classified the case as 

unlikely to be related to the pesticide exposure. The person’s reported illness would not 

be expected from exposure to this product. 

Insufficient information: An application of roach gel bait was made by injecting the 

compound into an electrical recepticle. Two days later, the 23-year-old female tenant 

developed a rash on her fingers she thought may be related. At no time did she come 

in contact with the gel. She also mentioned working at a child care business and 

“having her hands in everything.” She called 911, took medication for itching, and 

symptoms quickly resolved. 

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. With 

low/minor severity cases, there is minimal time loss (three days or less) from 

work or normal activities. 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. 

Moderate illness or injury 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 asthma attack. For 

moderate cases, the time loss from work or normal activities is three to five days. 

Cases are classified as severe when the illness or injury is considered life 

threatening; these cases typically require treatment or hospitalization to prevent 

death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, 

renal failure and/or respiratory depression. The individual sustains substantial 

loss of time (more than five days) from regular work. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 63
In 2005, 161 (86%) of the 188 definite, probable, or possible DOH cases were 

classified as mild. Twenty-six (14%) cases were classified as moderate and one 

(0.5%) case was classified as severe (Figure 9). Of the 188 DPP cases in 2005, 

146 (78%) received medical care for their symptoms. 

Figure 9. Severity of Medical Outcome, DPP Cases, 2005 

0 50 100 150 200

Severe

Moderate

Mild

Saw HCP No HCP

n = 188 cases

DOH classified the severity of the first case below as moderate and the second 

case as severe. Both had direct contact with the pesticide products. 

Moderate case: A 41-year-old homeowner dissolved a dry granular form of moss killer 

and applied it for one hour to his roof and siding. He did not wear gloves and the product 

dripped onto his left hand. He washed his hands and felt a burning sensation on his left 

hand. He was seen at the ER twice and treated for first and second degree burns. He 

said that he would wear gloves next time. DOH encouraged use of goggles as well. DOH 

classified this case as definitely related to the pesticide exposure. 

Severe case: A 49-year-old male vegetation management supervisor/city employee was 

taking inventory in a chemical storage room and decided to relocate some 2.5 gallon 

containers improperly stored on the top shelf. When he reached up to move a container 

of herbicide, the lid was missing and the product spilled into his face. He swallowed 

some of the product. He immediately took a full body shower and was taken for medical 

care. He was hospitalized the next day due to progressive respiratory and 

gastrointestinal symptoms. He was discharged after 10 days. DOH provided resources to 

the health care providers and L&I conducted an inspection. DOH classified this case as 

definitely related to pesticide exposure.

64 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Enhanced Surveillance Pilot: January – March 2005 

Investigations of Cases with No Health Care Provider 

In December 2004, the Washington Poison Center (WPC) began electronic 

screening and referral of suspected pesticide cases to DOH Pesticide Program. 

Prior to this time, DOH was only referred symptomatic pesticide exposures if the 

ill person saw a health care provider. During the first three months of 2005 the 

investigations were expanded to include 55 extra cases in which a person 

reported a symptomatic pesticide exposure but did not seek health care. 

Findings 

Forty-four of the 55 cases were determined to be possibly related to pesticide 

exposure from the information reported. There was however, little objective 

evidence to confirm either the exposure or the health effect. Three were cases 

confirmed to the level of Probable or Definite. 

Forty-four of the 47 DPP exposures were residential. Thirty-six (77%) were 

exposures to adults and eleven (23%) were exposures to children. All the 

symptoms reported were mild in medical outcome. Five cases involved 

applications by commercial applicators, the rest were applied by the general 

public. Only two cases were occupational exposures. One was a landscaper 

applying a pesticide. The other was a social worker exposed when visiting a 

client that over-applied mothballs in her house. 

Outdoor and indoor applications of pesticides were equally problematic. Each 

was associated with 20 cases. The target of the pesticide was typical for the time 

of year: fleas, ants and rodents in indoor environments; weeds, moss, and slugs 

in outdoor environments. Monitoring the target pest in this wider set of cases 

enables DOH to focus on specific pests in urban pesticide use safety educational 

activities. 

Decisions 

DOH did not have the resources to continue full investigations of minor 

symptomatic cases which were managed at home. DOH continues to screen 

symptomatic reports of pesticide exposures to identify people who have 

significant exposures or significant symptoms but do not seek health care. 

Significant cases are investigated. 

DOH will track and report on the numbers and general nature of more minor 

exposures. 

Outcome 

DOH developed a data system to sort and summarize these cases. Starting in 

2007, DOH will begin tracking and describing this data as part of our pesticide 

illness surveillance program. DOH will explore ways to include some of these 

cases in focused investigations of priority problems, such as exposures to 

children and problems with insect foggers. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 65
Number and Location of Investigated Cases 

Number of Incidents 

During 2005, the Pesticide Program investigated reports of 220 incidents 

involving 252 cases of possible pesticide illness (Figure 10). In addition, DOH 

investigated 55 cases as part of a pilot on expanded surveillance. These 55 

cases are not included in Figure 10 but are described on the previous page. 

Figure 10. DOH Reported Incidents and Cases, 2001 – 2005 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Incidents Cases

Number of Persons Involved in DPP Cases 

In 2005, there were 160 incidents involving 188 definite, probable, or possible 

cases. Of the 160 incidents, 147 (92%) involved one individual. Of the incidents 

involving more than one person, eight involved two persons, three involved three 

persons, one involved four persons and one incident involved 12 symptomatic 

persons. The incident involving 12 cases is described below. 

Fifteen female and male employees, ages 20 - 72 were exposed to herbicide (alachlor 

and atrazine) drift while working in and around greenhouses on the campus of a private 

school. Their supervisor reported that it was quite windy and the drift came from a 

ground application to an adjacent corn field. The spray drifted into the greenhouses. 

The employees could smell the chemicals: 12 had symptoms, one was taken to the 

hospital for care, and three were asymptomatic. WSDA samples from the area and 

from one worker's clothes were positive for the herbicide. 

Location 

In 2005, 25 of the 39 counties in Washington had cases that were classified as 

definitely, probably, or possibly related to pesticide exposure. Table 25 lists the 

11 counties with the most reported cases. Of the 188 DPP cases, 153 (81%) 

came from these counties while 77 percent (4.5 million) of the state population 

resides in these 11 counties. 

66 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 25. Top 11 Counties with the Most Reported Cases*, 2005 

County Incidents Cases 

King 25 25 

Grant 18 25 

Yakima 16 17 

Pierce 15 17 

Spokane 13 14 

Snohomish 9 9 

Franklin 8 20 

Benton 7 7 

Thurston 6 6 

Douglas 5 7 

Clark 5 6 

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

More of the 188 DPP cases occurred in eastern Washington (106) than in 

western Washington (80). The county was unknown for two cases. The 

distribution of cases may reflect population density and location of labor-intensive 

crops. 

Figure 11 illustrates the location of definite, probable, or possible cases for 2005. 

Figure 11. Distribution of Cases by County, 2005 

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 = 188 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 67
Table 26 displays the distribution of cases defined as definite, probable, or 

possible by agricultural and non-agricultural setting from 2001 through 2005. 

Table 26. Annual Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Cases*, 2001 – 2005 

Year Agricultural 

NonAgricultural Total Cases 

2001 58 (48%) 62 (52%) 120 

2002 75 (43%) 99 (57%) 174 

2003 73 (40%) 111 (60%) 184 

2004 64 (31%) 140 (69%) 204 

2005 77 (41%) 111 (59%) 188 

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

exposure. 

While the number of agricultural cases reported in the last five years has 

remained fairly steady, the number of non-agricultural cases has increased since 

2000. The increase is partly due to improvements in reporting from the WPC. 

Agricultural exposures occur when the pesticide application is intended for 

agricultural commodities such as fruit and field crops, nursery, livestock, and 

forest operations. Typical non-agricultural exposures include a spill or splash 

while opening and pouring pesticides, or wind blowing spray during the 

application. 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 care and 

protective clothing for these applications. 

Seasonality of Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Incidents 

In 2005, the majority (68%) of investigated agricultural-related cases occurred in 

the three months from April through June, 2005. This differs from 2004 where 

about the same percentage (67%) of agricultural events occurred in the six 

months from April to September. This may be due to a shift in pesticide use 

patterns in orchards. Late season azinphos-methyl applications are being 

supplanted by use of spinosad and acetamiprid products, which have much lower 

acute toxicity. According to USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service for 

2005, the total amount of azinphos-methyl applied to apples in Washington 

dropped over 30 percent from 2003. The drop was due to a slight decrease in the 

percent acreage of apples treated and to a 20 percent drop in the number of 

applications/year to the same acreage. Acetamiprid was applied to 41 percent of 

apple acreage in 2005. This was a 64 percent increase over 2003. Spinosad was 

applied to 62 percent of apple acreage. This was a 55 percent increase from 

2003. 

Non-agricultural incidents correspond to periods when people are most likely to

control landscape weeds and insects, garden pests, and home insects pests. 

Table 27 shows 2005 agricultural and non-agricultural cases by season. 

68 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 27. Cases by Season of the Year*, 2005 

Agricultural Non-Agricultural Total Cases 

January - March 7 23 30 

April - June 52 41 93 

July - September 16 40 56 

October - December 1 7 8 

Total 76** 111 187** 

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

exposure. 

** An agricultural case that occurred 12/01/2004, but was reported in 2005, is not included in this table.

Age and Gender 

In 2005, males (66) reported more occupational exposures than females (32). 

Females (45) and males (45) reported the same number of non-occupational 

exposures (Table 28). 

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. 

Nineteen children were under the age of 12 and three were teenagers over the 

age of 12. Fourteen of the 22 children were at home at the time of their 

exposures. Thirteen of the children were under the age of six. Two of the three 

teen-agers were working at the time of their exposures; one was picking cherries 

and one was working as a retail stock clerk. The third teen-ager accidentally 

inhaled pesticide after he lit a gopher bomb. Table 28 lists the age and gender of 

2005 DPP occupational and non-occupational cases. 

Table 28. Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases* by Age and Gender, 

2005 

Occupational Non-Occupational

Age Female Male Female Male Total

0-5 5 8 13 

6-11 3 3 6 

12-18 2 0 1 3 

19-29 7 18 5 7 37 

30-49 20 41 12 13 86 

50+ 5 5 20 13 43 

Total 32 66 45 45 188 

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

exposure.

There were three incidents where multiple family members became ill from the 

same exposure: 

• mother and two children from burning agricultural pesticide containers

• parents and two children when pesticide from an orchard spray drifted 

onto their car

• four children after playing on lawn treated with herbicide 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 69
Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness 

In 2005, 134 (53%) of all reported cases investigated by DOH involved a 

pesticide exposure on the job. Of these, 98 (73%) were classified as definite, 

probable, or possible cases. Sixty-four of the 98 DPP cases were agricultural 

workers, 33 were from other occupations and the occupation was unknown for 

one male worker. Figure 12 shows DOH agricultural and non-agricultural 

occupational cases for the years 2001 through 2005. 

Though the number of agricultural DPP cases has increased since 2001, cases 

overall are lower than what was reported in the mid 1990’s. The lowest number 

of agricultural DPP cases was in 2001. Since then, there has been a gradual 

increase back to the number of reported cases in the late 1990’s. The increase in 

2005 was due to an increase in drift cases from five in the previous year to 

twenty in 2005. DOH will monitor the number of agricultural cases to see if the 

increase continues. 

Figure 12. Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Occupational Cases*, 

2001 – 2005 

0

25

50

75

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Agricultural Non-Agricultural

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

70 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
A Complex Occupational Case from 2005 

DOH staff made a decision not to enter the following case into the Pesticide 

Information Management System (PIMS), therefore it is not included in the 2005 

dataset. The case was referred to DOH by L&I. The individual, a licensed 

pesticide control operator, applied six different pesticides with different 

equipment to multiple application targets and sites over nine weeks. Because 

there was no discrete exposure event, it would be difficult to accurately 

characterize the case in PIMS. Although the case is not included in either the 

DOH narrative or appendix, DOH staff agreed that it should be mentioned in the 

2005 PIRT Report.

Case Description 

In March through May 2005, a 56-year-old male licensed pesticide control 

operator with prior medical problems used a half face respirator and a 3M 6001 

organic vapor cartridge provided by his employer. He sprayed for insects under 

houses, apartment buildings, and commercial establishments, as well as inside 

and around the structures. He applied Monday through Friday at eight to ten 

addresses per day over the nine week period, for a total of 400 to 450 

applications. The products applied included multiple pyrethroids, fipronil, borates 

and growth regulators. Only one product label required applicators to wear a 

dust/mist filtering respirator when working in unventilated spaces such as crawl 

spaces. Most of the pesticide product labels state “do not breathe spray mists or 

dusts” under the precautionary language. 

He reported he wore a respirator and that symptoms began in March. He 

experienced double vision and progressively serious respiratory symptoms. In 

late April and May the symptoms did not subside during his days off. He saw his 

health provider twice in May and had both an x-ray and blood tests with 

inconclusive findings. 

Investigation by DOH revealed that the filters provided by the employer from 

March on were less protective than the filters usually provided. This problem was 

corrected. Because of multiple exposure dates, application techniques and 

products, the DOH surveillance database could not accommodate entry of this 

case.

Agricultural Pesticide Incidents 

In 2005, DOH investigated 106 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 106 cases, DOH classified 

77 as definite (13), probable (29), and possible (35). In 2005, there were twice as 

many drift exposures as there were for any other single type of exposure (Table 

29). 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 71
Table 29. Agricultural Occupational and Non-Occupational Cases by 

Source, 2005* 

Year Occupational Non-Occupational Total 

Drift 20 10 30 

Spray 12 0 12 

Surface residue 16 0 16 

Contact 8 0 8 

Indoor air 1 0 1 

Other 5 3 8 

Unknown 2 0 2 

Total Cases 64 13 77 

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

exposure. 

The annual number of drift cases tends to be variable since a single incident can 

sicken multiple people. Drift to workers generally involves agricultural workers. 

Drift to non-workers generally involves people in their homes, driving on roads, in 

parks. In 2005, there were five incidents where more than one person was 

exposed to drift by an agricultural pesticide. The five incidents account for 22 

(73%) of the 30 drift exposures (Table 30): 

• Two residents were outside of their homes when exposed to pesticide 

that drifted from an application to pears 

• Two residents were in their yards when exposed to pesticide that 

drifted from an application to apples 

• Two apple thinners were exposed to pesticide that drifted from an 

adjacent apple orchard 

• Four family members were exposed to pesticide that drifted in their car 

from an apple orchard 

• Twelve greenhouse workers were exposed to pesticide that drifted 

from an application to a corn field 

Table 30. Agricultural Drift to Workers and Others, 2001 – 2005* 

Year Occupational Non-Occupational Total 

2001 14 13 27 

2002 16 30 46 

2003 12 12 24 

2004 5 11 16 

2005 20 10 30 

Total Cases 67 76 143 

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

exposure. 

72 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Pesticides Involved in DPP Cases with Agricultural Workers 

In 2005, there were 64 workers with illness/injury classified as definitely, 

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

Twenty-eight of the 64 agricultural workers were handling pesticides at the time 

of their exposure. Handling is defined as applying or mixing/loading, maintaining 

pesticide equipment, or transporting pesticides). Thirty-six workers were exposed 

to pesticide drift or residues on leaves while thinning, pruning, handling nursery 

plants, or doing other agricultural work. 

Insecticides continue to be the most problematic class of pesticide in terms of 

reported illnesses and injuries in Washington agriculture. Thirty-eight (60%) of 

the 64 DPP cases among agricultural workers involved exposure to insecticides 

either alone or in combination with other pesticides. Fungicides were involved in 

21 of the 64 exposures, although two-thirds were in tank mixes with insecticides. 

This reflects the common practice of tank mixing insecticides and fungicides in 

tree fruit applications. Herbicides were involved in 22 of the 64 cases, but 12 

exposures were linked to a single drift incident. 

Cholinesterase inhibiting insecticides are the class of insecticides most 

associated with illness reports. Nineteen (50%) of the 38 DPP insecticide cases 

in agricultural workers involved a cholinesterase inhibitor. Carbaryl was involved 

with nine cases, azinphos-methyl was involved with seven cases, and 

chlorpyrifos was involved with three cases. 

Regarding cholinesterase inhibiting insecticides, there are three factors which 

may decrease the number of cases over time: planned phase-out of certain 

cholinesterase inhibitors by EPA, improvements in worker safety provided by the 

cholinesterase monitoring program, and increased use of alternatives to 

cholinesterase inhibitors, such as coddling moth mating disruption with 

pheromones. 

The next most common pesticides associated with reported illness are the sulfurbased products (elemental sulfur and lime sulfur). There were ten cases in 2005, 

many of them in tank mixes. Sulfur-based products are mostly associated with 

skin irritation, eye injuries, and allergic reactions. There were eight cases 

associated with nicotinoid insecticides (imadacloprid, acetamiprid), twice the 

number of cases reported in 2004. This is a relatively new class of insecticides 

with expected low toxicity. DOH plans on tracking this trend in the future. 

Table 31 shows the pesticide active ingredients for DPP cases involving 

agricultural workers. Since pesticides are commonly tank-mixed with other active 

ingredients, the number of total cases involving exposure to a specific chemical 

is often higher than indicated in the table. A general description of cases, 

recorded here as combinations of pesticides, is provided in the text of this 

section. Details on specific cases are also available in the Appendix C. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 73
Table 31. Pesticide Involved in Cases* Involving Agricultural Workers by 

Ingredient, 2005 

Pesticide Handlers Other Workers 

Cholinesterase Inhibitors 

Aldicarb 1 0 

Azinphos-methyl 2 1 

Carbaryl 0 2 

Carbofuran 1 0 

Combination of cholinesterase inhibitors with other pesticides 6 6 

Other insecticides 

Acetamiprid 0 1 

Imadicloprid 0 2 

Pyridaben (Sanmite) 0 1 

Spiromesifen 0 1 

Phosphine fumigants (aluminum/zinc phosphide) 5 0 

Combinations of insecticides and other pesticides (no 

cholinesterase inhibitors) 4 5 

Herbicides 

Alachlor + Atrazine 1 12 

Glyphosate (mostly as Roundup) 2 0 

Paraquat dichloride 0 1 

Herbicide combinations 1 1 

Fungicides 

Calcium polysulfide (lime sulfur) 3 0 

Sulfur 1 2 

Combinations of fungicides 1 0 

Other 

Kaolin 0 1 

Totals 28 36 

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

pesticide exposure. 

Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Insecticides 

With the statewide implementation of cholinesterase monitoring by Department of 

Labor and Industries in 2004, there is continued interest in data specific to 

cholinesterase inhibiting insecticides. In 2005, DOH documented ten DPP cases 

in pesticide handlers associated with cholinesterase inhibitors. This is similar to 

2004 and about average for the last ten years (Figure 12). Overall, 

cholinesterase inhibitors were associated with about one third of DPP handler 

pesticide cases in 2004 and 2005. 

Figure 13 illustrates the number of handlers that experienced systemic (effecting 

the entire body) symptoms (7) and the number that had topical (effecting a 

particular surface area) symptoms (3) in 2005, and per year since 1996. 

74 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Figure 13. Type of Illness and Injury* for Handlers of CholinesteraseInhibiting-Pesticides,** 1996 – 2005 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

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.

Description of Cholinesterase Cases 

Nine of the ten DPP cases were seen in an emergency room or doctor’s office. 

The tenth case reported many of the hallmark symptoms of systemic carbamate 

insecticide poisoning and was advised to seek medical attention by the WPC. 

This person chose to manage their symptoms at home. Symptom severity was 

rated moderate in three cases and low in seven cases. There were two ocular 

exposures that resulted in eye pain, tearing and conjunctivitis and two cases of 

red itchy rash that corresponded to the area of skin exposure. There were six 

cases of systemic symptoms, primarily: nausea, dizziness, sweating, muscle 

fasciculation, and headache. 

Seven cases occurred in apple orchards mostly while applying with ground 

sprayers, two cases occurred during application or loading in potato production, 

and one occurred during pesticide mixing in cranberries. The pesticides 

associated with reported illnesses in handlers in 2005 are listed in Table 32. 

Active ingredients are listed when the exposure involved that pesticide alone, but 

in six of ten cases, cholinesterase inhibitors were tank mixed with: supreme oil, 

sulfur products, fungicides, growth regulators and various other products. 

Including the tank mixes: Azinphos-methyl exposure occurred in a total of three 

of ten handler cases (one with topical symptoms, two with systemic symptoms), 

carbaryl was involved with three cases (two with topical symptoms, one with 

systemic symptoms) and chlorpyrifos was involved with one topical case. 

Phosmet, aldicarb, and carbofuran were each involved with one systemic case. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 75
Table 32. Type of Illness* for Handlers** of Cholinesterase Inhibiting 

Pesticides, 2001 – 2005 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Totals 

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

Azinphos methyl 1 2 1 1 4 1 

Chlorpyrifos 2 2 

Dimethoate 1 1 1 1 

Disulfoton 1 1 

Ethoprop 1 1 

Aldicarb 1 1 

Carbofuran 1 1 

Combinations of 

cholinesterase inhibitors 

with other products 

4 4 1 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 14 13 

Totals 5 4 1 3 5 1 8 3 6 4 25 15 

*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.

Five of these ten handlers were enrolled in the state Cholinesterase Monitoring 

Program. Only one had more than 20 percent depression of cholinesterase and 

triggered an alert and L&I follow-up. This case involved a male applicator using 

an airblast sprayer in an apple orchard. He had been applying a tank mix of 

Lorsban 4E, dormant oil, and micronized sulfur for a three week period. He then 

developed acute eye symptoms when the wind picked up and the spray hit his 

face and eyes. He was wearing safety glasses which do not protect eyes as well 

as goggles. He sought treatment for his eye symptoms and returned to work. His 

visit to a health care provider was reported to DOH. Two follow-up tests 

conducted ten and 17 days later showed more than 20 percent depression of 

both red blood cell and serum cholinesterase. These triggered alerts to L&I. 

Although organophosphates are absorbed during ocular exposure, it is possible 

that his depression was due to several other exposure pathways identified during 

L&I follow-up on the alert. 

A 61-year-old male applicator had ocular symptoms after applying with an air blast sprayer. The 

wind came up and he reported that spray hit his face and neck but not directly into his eyes. He was 

wearing safety glasses not goggles. He sought medical care the next day. He had been spraying 

the same mix over a three week period and was enrolled in the cholinesterase monitoring program. 

Two tests done ten days and 17 days after exposure showed RBC and serum cholinesterase were 

depressed more than 20 percent. L&I and DOH made a field visit together to investigate. 

76 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
This case illustrates the importance of the cholinesterase program in identifying 

and correcting problem work practices. Without cholinesterase testing, the followup on this case would have been limited to DOH outreach on preventing eye 

exposures by wearing goggles or a full face respirator during airblast spraying. 

Because of L&I involvement, the workplace was able to correct problems such as 

the use of absorbent hooded sweatshirts and ball caps under rain suits, 

incomplete decontamination of gear and hands during breaks, and parts of the 

worker training that employees did not properly understand. 

Crops Associated with DPP Cases for all Agricultural Pesticides 

Table 33 shows the crop associated with the 77 DPP cases resulting from 

agricultural pesticide use in 2005. The crops involved were fruit (50) and field or 

vegetable (21). Of the remaining six exposures, two involved pesticides used for 

aphids/mites at nurseries, three resulted from burning agricultural pesticide 

containers, and one occurred when water from a hose previously used to mix 

herbicides splashed on a worker who was using the hose to wash off farm 

machinery. 

In 2005, 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 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. 

Forty-one (82%) of the 50 cases involving fruit production were agricultural 

workers. The other nine cases were not working and were exposed to pesticide 

drift at their homes. Twenty-one of the 41 agricultural workers were pesticide 

handlers. Twenty workers were pruning trees or thinning/picking fruit at the time 

of their exposure. 

Cases Resulting from Applications to Field Crops 

In 2005, there were ten incidents with 21 cases involving pesticide applications to 

field crops (Table 33). The field crops included corn, potatoes, alfalfa, and wheat. 

Twenty of the 21 cases were agricultural workers and seven of the 20 workers 

were handling pesticides at the time of exposure. Twelve cases were 

greenhouse workers who were exposed to pesticide drift from an application at 

an adjacent corn field. One non-occupational case was a resident exposed to 

drift from a potato field application. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 77
Table 33. Agricultural Cases* by Target and Activity, 2005 

Applying Mix/Load/

Repair 

Routine 

Work 

Outdoor 

Living 

Indoor 

Living Total 

Fruit 

Apples 12 2 14 5 1 34 

Cherries 3 5 1 9 

Pears 1 2 3 

Grapes 2 1 3 

Cranberries 1 1 

Field and Vegetable Crops 

Corn 1 12 13 

Potatoes 1 3 1 1 6 

Alfalfa 1 1 

Wheat 1 1 

Other Agricultural 

Ornamental nurseries 2 2 

No applicable target 1 3 4 

Totals 22 6 36 12 1 77 

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

exposure. 

Non-Agricultural Pesticide Incidents 

Of the 252 cases investigated in 2005, 147 were associated with non-agricultural 

pesticide use. DOH determined 111 (76%) of these to be definitely, probably, or 

possibly related to pesticide exposure (Table 34). Non-agricultural incidents 

include pesticide applications or spills that occur at homes, commercial buildings, 

industrial sites, or from roadside spraying. Of the 111 DPP non-agricultural 

exposures, 72 (65%) were at a residential site at the time of their exposure. 

Three of these exposures were from pesticides drifting from their intended 

application site: two were from an application to a school yard and one was from 

a roadside application. Thirty-four (31%) of the individuals were working at the 

time of exposure and 77 (69%) were not at work. 

78 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 34. Exposure Site for Non-Agricultural, Occupational and NonOccupational Cases, 2005* 

Exposure Site Occupational Non-Occupational 

Residential building or grounds (home, apt) 6 66 

Other institution (nursing home) 2 0 

Other manufacturing 5 0 

Office, retail or service businesses 13 4 

Park, lake, camp grounds 1 1 

Road, right-of-way or vehicle 4 6 

Other 2 0 

Unknown site 1 0 

Total non-agricultural pesticide use 34 77 

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

exposure.

Non-Agricultural Occupational 

In 2005, 34 non-agricultural cases occurred on-the-job; 23 were males and 11 

were females. Eighteen of the 34 cases were handling pesticides at the time of 

exposure. The following example is a non-agricultural, occupational incident from 

2005: 

A 19-year-old male roofer was exposed to pesticide mist when a coworker sprayed a 

nearby wasp nest. He sought medical care for eye and respiratory symptoms. DOH 

classified the case as probably related to the pesticide exposure. 

Non-Agricultural Non-Occupational 

In 2005, 77 exposures occurred where the person was not working and the 

release was not associated with agriculture. Sixteen were children and 61 were 

adults over the age of 18. Of the 61 adults, a few more were women (32) than 

men (29). Of the 77 non-occupational exposures, 66 occurred in homes (Table 

34). 

The following is an example of a non-agricultural, non-occupational case 

classified as possibly related to the exposure: 

A 61-year-old female condo owner hired a pest control operator to treat her home when 

she found roaches. She stayed out of the home for approximately nine hours that day. 

She returned at 10:00 p.m. and opened windows for ventilation as directed. The next day 

she noticed some odor, turned up the heat, and by 9:30 p.m. that evening, reported 

feeling upper respiratory effects. She showered and the next day the only remaining 

symptom was hoarseness. DOH classified the case as possibly related to the pesticide 

exposure. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 79
Non-Agricultural Non-Occupational Exposures by Applicator Type 

In 2005, ten of the 77 non-agricultural, non-occupational DPP cases were 

exposed to applications by professional (paid) applicators. Three cases involved 

herbicide applications to landscape weeds and one involved an insect application 

that drifted to a neighbor’s home. Four people became ill from roadway 

applications: three bikers were sprayed in a mosquito application and one 

roadside herbicide application drifted to a nearby home. Two people were 

exposed to applications to insects in buildings (Table 35). 

The remaining 67 exposures were due to applications made by home owners, 

landlords, and coworkers. Specifically, these involved pesticide treatments of: 

• fruit trees, insects, slugs, gophers (10) 

• insects in the home (17) 

• treatments to people or pets for fleas, lice, or biting insects (10) 

• herbicides/treatments for moss or weeds (16) or 

• accidental ingestion or release of pesticide products (14) 

Table 35. Target Pest for Non-Agricultural, Non-Occupational Cases 

Exposed to Pesticide Applications by Professional* and Non-Professional 

Applicators, 2005** 

Professional Applications Non-Professional Applications 

Landscape/Garden Use 

Weeds and moss 3 17 

Fruit trees 0 2 

Insects/plant disease 1 5 

Slugs 0 2 

Gophers/moles 0 1 

Use In/Around Structures 

Fleas/roaches/other insects 2 16 

Moss 0 1 

Applications to People/Pets 

Lice 0 4 

Insect repellents 0 3 

Applications to pets for fleas 0 2 

Accidental release or ingestion 0 14 

Area-wide 

Mosquitoes (roadway) 3 0 

Weeds (roadway) 1 0 

Total 10 67 

* 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.

80 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Highlight on Pesticide Drift 

2004 and 2005 Pesticide Spray Drift and Human Health Incidents 

Exposure to pesticide drift is an important cause of documented pesticide-related 

illness in Washington. The DOH data were compiled for drift incidents 

(applications that drifted) and cases (people reporting symptoms) for the years 

2004 and 2005. A drift incident may involve multiple cases. The DOH Pesticide 

Program reviewed drift data from 2002 through 2003 in the 2004 PIRT Report. 

Since pesticide illness reports are referred to DOH by other PIRT agencies, all 

cases of drift-related illness should be included in the DOH dataset. The 

analyses in this report include only cases that DOH classified as definitely, 

probably, or possibly (DPP) related to pesticide exposure. 

During the years 2004 and 2005, pesticide drift was involved in 36 incidents 

involving 62 cases of illness or injury. This is a decline from the previous twoyear data set which involved 58 incidents and 95 people with symptoms. Figure 

14 shows drift as a proportion of all DOH DPP cases and incidents for 2004 and 

2005 combined. Drift was a relatively small factor in reported cases of urban and 

suburban use of pesticides. Only ten incidents involving 15 people were 

classified as definite, probable, or possible during this two year period. 

Agricultural drift continued, however, to be a significant source of pesticide illness 

and injury in reported agricultural cases. 

Figure 14. Drift as a Proportion of all DOH DPP Cases, 

Other

(75%)

Drift

(25%)

Drift

(6%)

Other

(94%)

Non-agricultural Drift Agricultural Drift

n = 251 non-agricultural cases n = 141 agricultural cases 

Agricultural applications to farms and nurseries were involved in 26 (72%) of the 

36 total incidents and 47 (76%) of the 62 cases. However, farmers and farm 

workers were not the sole recipients of pesticide drift. Figure 15 shows DOH drift 

cases by site of exposure. More than half the people with symptoms (58%) were

residents in nearby homes, people driving their vehicles on public roads, or 

people in other nearby buildings. As housing developments continue to expand

into agricultural areas, reports of agricultural drift onto residential property may 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 81
increase. Possible mitigations include changes in county zoning for housing 

developments, use of vegetative buffers at the edge of agricultural lands, and 

use of best management practices to prevent pesticide drift. 

Figure 15. Site of Exposure, 2004 – 2005, DPP Cases 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Farm Residential Road School Other

n= 47 cases

Cases of agricultural drift have declined slightly over the last six years. The 

number of people involved continues to be highly variable and can be influenced 

36. DOH cases* involved wi

by a single case with a large number of people involved. 

Table th Agricultural Pesticide Drift 

Year Incidents DPP cases 

2000 20 59 

2001 11 23 

2002 25 46 

2003 16 24 

2004 13 17 

2005 13 30 

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

exposure 

82 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Figure 16. DOH Agricultural Drift DPP Cases by Crop Type, 2004 – 

2005 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Applications People

Tree Fruit Potatoes Corn Nursery Ornaments Other

n = 26 applicants involving 47 people with symptoms

Of the 26 incidents of drift involving agricultural applications during 2004 and 

2005, 17 (65%) involved applications to tree fruit Figure 16. Pesticide 

applications to corn do not usually appear as a significant contributor in the DOH 

data set. Nearly all the cases attributed to corn in this time period were involved 

in one case of drift to greenhouse workers nearby. 

Figure 17. DOH Drift DPP Cases Involving Tree Fruit, 2002 – 2003 

Apples 

Pears

Cherries

0 5 10 15 20

n = 25 cases

Tree fruit cases can be categorized by the specific target of the pesticide 

application. Most of these occurred during treatment of apple orchards Figure 17

This finding is consistent with past years and, according to 2005 data published 

in the United States Department of Agriculture 2005 Fruit Summary published in 

July 2006, the number of reported cases above appears to be pr

. 

oportional to the 

number of acres planted in these crops in Washington in 2005. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 83
Pesticides Associated with Agricultural Drift Illness/Injury 

Insecticides were involved in 53 percent of reported drift-related illnesses. 

Fungicides were involved in 30 percent of cases, although in half these cases the 

fungicides were tank-mixed with insecticides. Herbicides comprised only 16 

percent of the reported applications that drifted but were associated with 32 

percent of the cases of illness because of one incident in which a mix of atrazine 

and alachlor sickened 12 people. Figure 18 shows the type of pesticide involved 

with DPP agricultural drift cases. 

Figure 18. DOH Drift DPP Cases Involving Tree Fruit, 2002 – 2003 

Fungicides

(15%)

Insecticide/

Fungicide mix 

(15%)

Insecticides

(38%)

Herbicides

(32%)

Table 37 shows the pesticide involved with reported agricultural drift cases* for 

2004 and 2005. When a pesticide was part of a tank mix they were tallied 

separately as “in combinations”. Exposure to a cholinesterase inhibitor was 

involved with one third of agricultural drift cases. Chlorpyrifos and azinphosmethyl were involved in multiple cases. Carbaryl and methamidiphos were each 

involved with one case. Petroleum oils do not have a high toxicity but were 

frequently part of the tank mix with cholinesterase inhibitors and other 

insecticides. These horticultural oils were present in seven applications that 

drifted involving 13 DPP cases. 

84 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 37. Pesticide Involved with Reported Agricultural Drift cases*, 

2004 - 2005 

Pesticide Applications DPP Cases 

Azinphos-methyl Alone 2 2 

In combinations 2 3 

Chlorpyrifos Alone 2 2 

In combinations 3 8

Other cholinesterase 

inhibitors In combinations 2 4 

Other insecticides 5 6 

Herbicides 4 15 

Lime sulfur/ sulfur In combinations 3 3 

Copper hydroxide In combinations 3 3 

The pesticides involved with drift incidents reflect the acute toxicity and the 

frequency of use in orchards. For instance, according to the USDA 2005 Fruit 

Summary, the two most widely applied insecticides in apple orchards in 2005 

were petroleum distillates (218,240 acres) and azinphos-methyl (200,880 acres). 

These were followed by carbaryl (154,070 acres) and chlorpyrifos (98,890 acres). 

All are typically applied by airblast sprayers. While there are more applications of 

carbaryl, it has a lower acute toxicity than chlorpyrifos and is associated with only 

one DPP case in 2005 versus ten for chlorpyrifos. 

Medical Outcome of Drift Exposures 

The most commonly reported symptoms of pesticide drift exposure were irritation 

and mild systemic symptoms. These included respiratory symptoms such as 

burning in throat, shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing; skin irritation and 

rash; eye irritation; and headache and nausea. Thirty (48%) of the 62 individuals 

reporting symptoms sought health care in an emergency room or a doctors 

office. The remaining individuals had two or more symptoms but did not seek 

health care. This included five people identified during investigation of a school 

incident and ten people identified during an investigation of a drift to greenhouse 

workers. 

Risk Factors for Drift-Related Illness in Washington 

Risk factors for drift-related illness in Washington include toxicity of the pesticide 

as mentioned above and application equipment, weather, applicator training, and 

proximity to residences. 

Equipment 

The equipment most frequently associated with drift incidents reported to DOH 

were powered ground sprayers and aerial equipment (Figure 19). These are also 

the most frequently used type of equipment for the application of pesticides to 

tree fruit commodities in Washington. Ground applications generally involve the 

use of airblast sprayers. Airblast sprayers use high pressure and a fine spray to 

evenly coat both sides of tree leaves in orchards. Use of equipment that 

produces a fine spray is more likely to result in drift because small droplets are 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 85
more easily carried by the wind than large droplets. Aerial equipment lays a 

swath of spray in the air above the crop. Best management practices for control 

of drift with these types of equipment include the use of air induction nozzles, 

lowering pressure and increasing water volume to increase droplet size, and 

avoiding weather conditions that favor drift. Detailed guidance on best 

management practices for different equipment types is available from the 

National Spray Drift Task Force at 

http://www.agdrift.com/Text%20pages/Pub_PDF.htm. 

Figure 19. DOH Drift DPP Agricultural Cases by Type of Application 

Equipment, 2004 - 2005 

Weather 

Weather conditions such as wind speeds over ten mph, presence of wind gusts, 

and temperature inversions increase the risk of pesticide drift. Applicators are 

required to report wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature on pesticide 

spray records for each application, but most spray records associated with DOH 

cases did not indicate that adverse weather conditions were present. Spray 

records commonly recorded wind speed in generic terms such as “calm” and did 

not cite the source of their observations (an on-site anemometer, or visual 

observation). Eye witness accounts of windy conditions were sometimes in 

conflict with wind speed recorded on spray records. In an effort to collect more 

reliable and objective weather data, DOH explored linking DOH data to local 

weather station data from Public Agricultural Weather Stations (PAWS). The 

nearest PAWS station was often too far from the site to provide accurate wind 

readings, as local topography can be a significant factor in wind speed and 

direction. In 2007, DOH will test a project to link drift events to weather data from 

a higher resolution meteorological weather model that includes NW topography 

(MM5) to see if this can provide a better source of accurate data to track whether 

conditions are a risk factor for drift. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Applications People

Aerial Chemigation Ground Sprayer

n= 26 incidents and 47 cases 

86 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Applicator Training 

Although DOH does not specifically track applicator misjudgment as a risk factor, 

it appears that applicator error was a common feature of drift cases. Thirty (58%) 

of the 42 drift incidents in the DOH data set involved a licensed pesticide 

applicator. These are applicators who have passed a licensing test and who must 

complete continuing education credits to maintain their license. State pesticide 

law allows an unlicensed person to apply pesticides if they are working under the 

supervision of a licensed applicator (Figure 20). 

Figure 20. DOH Drift DPP Cases by License Status of Applicator, 

2004 – 2005 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Licensed Under Supervision Not Licensed Unknown

Agriculture Non-agriculture

n = 62 cases

Proximity to Residences 

More than half the people with symptoms (58%) were residents in nearby homes, 

people driving their vehicles on public roads, or people in other nearby buildings 

Many of these residences border working agricultural land. There are a variety of 

methods for preventing drift to nearby residences including observing buffer 

zones, use of alternative spray methods or non-spray methods when controlling 

pests near residences, planting trees along borders to obstruct drift, land use 

planning that includes buffers between residential housing and agricultural 

operations, and coordination with neighbors to spray at times when exposure to 

an accidental drift is unlikely. A recent analysis of WSDA drift investigation data 

showed that while drift distances were highly variable, they were commonly 

documented 100 feet from airblast sprayers and 1000 feet from aerial 

applications. More information on this study is available at 

http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Publications/docs/2004Driftdistance61804.pdf. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 87
Drift Incidents Investigated by the Washington Department of Agriculture 

The WSDA investigates complaints about drift associated with crop injury, bee 

kills, residue on vehicles and property, and complaints about human exposures 

to drift. If human exposure is associated with symptoms, WSDA refers the case 

to DOH, so there is some overlap between the WSDA and DOH data sets in this 

category. 

In 2004, WSDA received 64 complaints about drift to property or crops and 13 

complaints about human exposures to drift. In 2005, WSDA received 76 

complaints about drift to property or crops and 22 complaints about human 

exposure to pesticide drift. Drift was verified by the WSDA investigator in 49 

(64%) of 2004 cases and 58 (59%) of 2005 cases. In the other cases, allegations 

of human exposure to spray drift could not be substantiated by environmental 

samples or visual evidence of pesticide damage. Complaints of drift damage to 

crops and ornamentals were sometimes determined to be from drought, insects 

or frost. Table 38 shows the complaints received by WSDA involving allegations 

of pesticide drift for 2004 and 2005. 

Table 38. WSDA Drift Complaints, 2004 – 2005 

General 

Drift Complaints 

Drift Involving Year Total Human Exposure 

2002 59 28 87 

2003 45 17 62 

2004 64 13 77 

2005 76 22 98 

* Drift cases involving alleged human illness are referred to DOH and are in the DOH data set 

if they were considered definitely, probably, or possibly related to the pesticide exposure. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Pesticide drift is an important cause of pesticide-related illness in Washington. 

Prevention efforts should target ground applications to tree fruit. Strategies for 

preventing drift may include increased use of non-pesticide pest management 

(mating disruption with pheromone, for example), new technologies that reduce 

drift (such as air induction nozzles and tunnel sprayers), education of pesticide 

applicators and farm managers about best management practices for drift 

reduction, recognition and incentives for applicators and farms who operate with 

best management practices, and disincentives to applicators and farm managers 

who cause drift. 

More attention is needed to protect residences near agricultural fields. Use of 

buffers and vegetated strips may help prevent drift from reaching neighboring 

residences. Adoption of new nozzle and sprayer technology could reduce 

production of driftable particles. Pre-notification of nearby residents would allow 

them to close windows and further minimize the effect of an accidental drift. 

88 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Monitoring of pesticide drift should be expanded by PIRT agencies to include 

more systematic and detailed information about risk factors. It would be helpful to 

track: weather conditions at the time of the drift, type of ground sprayer and any 

use of drift mitigation technology, equipment settings, whether best management 

practices were used, and how far drift traveled. To accomplish this, DOH, WSDA, 

and L&I will collect a common checklist of factors in 2007 drift investigations. 

Highlights of DOH Prevention Activities 2006

Local, State and Federal Government 

The DOH Pesticide Program provides technical assistance to federal, state and 

local agencies, as well as individuals, on pesticide toxicology and human health 

effects. The Pesticide Program staff also participates in outreach and pesticide 

safety education for agricultural workers and the public. 

DOH Pesticide Program staff were involved in the following activities in 2006. 

Federal and Other State’s Agencies 

• Presented on “Assessment of Preventable Causes” at the Winter 

Conference of Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk 

(SENSOR) – a national pesticide workgroup. 

• Presented the Pesticide Program’s NIOSH grant results to the Council of 

State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 

• Participated in the NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda 

(NORA) Town Hall with presentation of information on the DOH Pesticide 

Program and recommendations for NIOSH’s ten-year research agenda. 

• Responded to a NIOSH request with examples of eight cases in which 

PPE was used improperly for the EPA Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee Work Group on Worker Protections. 

• Forwarded pesticide illness monitoring data to NIOSH for compilation of 

national pesticide illness statistics, 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/ 

• Participated in phone conference with NIOSH, the EPA chemical 

manager of pyrethrins, and staff from Oregon Pesticide Program to 

gather details about health effects in cases involving pyrethrins and 

pyrethroids. A fatality in Oregon related to the use of these substances 

resulted in a lengthy discussion. Washington and Oregon plan to publish 

a joint article on their states’ findings in 2007. 

• Provided example herbicide cases and safety slides to Bureau of Land 

Management staff in Idaho for training their tri-state weed management 

crew. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 89
Washington – State and Local Agencies 

• Presented to L&I’s Chemically Related Illness staff on pesticide-related 

illness reporting and pesticide toxicology. 

• Presented on pesticides and Parkinson’s disease at the Washington 

State Environmental Health Association annual meeting in Vancouver. 

• Presented at the Yakima PIRT meeting on the Pesticide Program’s 

NIOSH grant. 

• Supported L&I’s Cholinesterase Monitoring Program by maintaining the 

Cholinesterase Monitoring Data System (CMDS) application, which 

processes and stores cholinesterase records and provides alert 

notification and other reports to L&I. 

• Attended the UW Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Heath 

(PNASH) Center Advisory Board meeting. 

• Provided eight cases of pesticide related illnesses/injury to the UW 

PNASH Center for use in their new medical education modules. 

• Presented to Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration on 

the Pesticide Program’s exposure and prevention data. 

• Presented at the Washington State Commission on Pesticide 

Registration’s 2006 Pest Control Tour on cholinesterase monitoring and 

DOH pesticide incident reporting and tracking. 

• Provided technical support to Thurston County Environmental Health on 

their pesticide policy. 

• Provided technical support to the DOH School Environmental Health and 

Safety Program for revising the “State Board of Health Rules on School 

Environmental Health and Safety for K-12 Schools.” 

Licensed Pesticide Applicators 

In 2006, DOH staff presented information on the prevention of pesticide-related 

illness to licensed pesticide applicators and pesticide handlers at training, 

recertification and continuing education courses sponsored by Washington State 

University and WSDA. Presentations were in English and Spanish and covered 

pesticide safety, use of personal protective equipment, and the acute and chronic 

health effects of exposure to pesticides. Approximately 930 applicators 

participated in these trainings at nine locations in eastern and western 

Washington. 

Farm Workers and General Agricultural Community 

• Provided pesticide education and safety information at Commission on 

Hispanic Affairs meetings in Yakima, Quincy, Olympia, Mattawa, and 

South Central Seattle. 

90 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
• Presented update on Pesticide Incident Summary Reports to 

Commission on Hispanic Affairs. 

• Attended the two day conference in California on Western Agricultural 

Health and Safety. 

• Attended the Western Migrant Stream Conference in Portland. 

• Met with farm worker advocates at the Northwest Environmental Justice 

Project and Columbia Legal Services. 

Agricultural Growers Groups 

As in previous years, 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. 

• Attended a WSDA sponsored meeting on Farm Worker Education and 

Outreach for grower groups that provide outreach to farm workers. 

Developed a detailed contact list of meeting attendees for future 

collaboration. 

• Toured an apple orchard and packing house in Naches. 

Health Care Providers 

• Provided two cases of pesticide-related illness to staff at the Migrant 

Clinician's Network for use at a national farm worker's conference and in 

training materials for practicing clinicians. 

• Visited 20 hospital emergency departments and 31 health care providers 

in 12 eastern Washington counties. During these visits, staff provided 

information on the Pesticide Program, reminded providers that pesticide 

illnesses is a Notifiable Condition, and distributed the newest revision of 

Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings and other 

publications on pesticides. 

• Presented to health care providers at three clinics with DOH Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry staff in Yakima, Wenatchee, and 

Sunnyside. Reviewed the importance of obtaining exposure histories in 

the clinical setting, explained the DOH Pesticide Illness Monitoring and 

Prevention Program, and emphasized the importance of reporting 

pesticide-related illness as a Notifiable Condition. 

General Public 

• Distributed pesticide education and safety information at the annual 

Washington Health Foundation’s Latina Health Fair in Seattle. 

• Served as a Community Advisory Board member for Fred Hutchinson, 

and attended a meeting focused on Hispanic Health Promotion. 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 91
• Presented at Master Home Environmentalist program sponsored by the 

American Lung Association. The audience included the American Lung 

Association, Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic, Group Health, Klickitat 

County Health Department, Yakama Indian Nation, Yakima 

Neighborhood Health Service and University of Washington Masters’ 

program student nurses. 

• Attended the EPA Environmental Justice Listening Session. 

• Supported Public Health Seattle and King County in public response to 

gypsy moth spraying. 

• Responded to requests from the public for information regarding 

pesticides and pesticide safety. 

• Continued to provide updated information for urban and suburban 

pesticide users and schools at Urban Pesticide Education Strategy Team 

(UPEST) website. 

Letters and Publications (Appendix G) 

• Submitted a letter to the EPA endorsing a petition put forward by the 

attorneys general of 15 states. This petition recommended that the EPA 

make regulatory changes to require that pesticide manufacturers 

disclose inert ingredients in their products. Disclosure of inert ingredients 

would improve diagnosis and treatment of patients with pesticide illness, 

protect consumers with known allergies or sensitivities, and enhance 

tracking and evaluation of state pesticide illness surveillance data. 

• Published an article in Northwest Bulletin: Family and Child Health on 

“Preventing Pesticide Exposure through Illness Monitoring in Washington 

State” explaining how DOH uses pesticide illness data for policy 

recommendations and education to protect children and families from 

pesticide exposure. 

• Co-authored a paper on “Acute Pesticide-Related Illness among 

Emergency Responders 1993-2002” published in American Journal of 

Industrial Medicine. The paper reviews data on pesticide illness rates in 

emergency responders and calls for greater prevention efforts in this 

group. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/AJIM-emergresponder.pdf 

Partnerships 

The DOH Pesticide Program staff participates 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" 

92 Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
• Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center Advisory Board 

• Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center "El Proyecto 

Bienestar” 

• Pesticide Advisory Board 

• Pesticide Incident Review and Tracking Panel (chair and coordinator) 

• Spanish Public Radio KDNA (Community Advisory Board) 

• Thurston County Vegetation Management Board 

• Toppenish Farm Workers Clinic (Community Advisory Board) 

• Washington Friends of Farm and Forests (non-voting, advisory member) 

educational member 

• Washington State Commission on Hispanic Affairs 

• Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration (non-voting, 

advisory member) 

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 93

Labor and Industries 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ summary of pesticide-related 

activity for 2005. 

Background 

Four divisions in the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) are involved in 

pesticide-related activities: L&I Division of Occupational Safety and Health 

(DOSH), L&I Specialty Compliance Services, L&I Field Services and L&I 

Industrial Insurance Services. 

• DOSH has a mandate to ensure workplace safety and health. DOSH 

creates workplace safety and health regulations, provides stakeholder 

training and outreach, holds the Annual Governor’s Safety Conference 

and Agricultural Safety Day, inspects workplaces for safety and health, 

handles appeals of safety and health violations, and generates the L&I 

section of the PIRT report. DOSH enforces the Agriculture Worker 

Protection and Cholinesterase Monitoring rules and runs the 

Cholinesterase Monitoring program. L&I Consultation Services, a division 

of DOSH, provides no cost safety consultations to employers. These 

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

• The L&I Field Services Division includes specialty compliance personnel, 

inspectors and consultants based in regional field offices. 

• The L&I Specialty Compliance program issues farm labor contractor 

licenses, enforces agricultural wages, breaks, rest periods, 

recordkeeping requirements, and enforces prohibited agricultural jobs for 

minors. 

• L&I Industrial Insurance Services staff provides Risk Management and 

Loss Control assessments. The Safety & Health Assessment & 

Research for Prevention group investigates 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. 

Pesticide-related activities of DOSH and Industrial Insurance Services are 

included in this PIRT report. 

Cholinesterase Monitoring 

L&I adopted Chapter 296-307-148 WAC, Cholinesterase (ChE) Monitoring, in 

December 2003. The cholinesterase monitoring rule became effective 

February 1, 2004. This rule requires agricultural employers to document the 

number of hours their employees spend handling toxicity category I or II 

organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. Over-exposure to these 

pesticides can result in depression of cholinesterase, an enzyme that serves as 

the nervous system’s “off switch” and is essential to the normal function of the 

nervous system. A depression in cholinesterase activity can lead to a range of 

physical symptoms, including blurred vision, headache, increased sweating, 

nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. A severe depression can result in slowing of the 

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 95
heart rate, seizures, unconsciousness, respiratory failure, and death. Monitoring 

of blood cholinesterase activity in both red blood cells and serum can detect 

cholinesterase depression before the onset of illness. 

Employers are required to offer their employees the opportunity to participate in 

the cholinesterase monitoring program if the employee’s number of handling 

hours of target pesticides is expected to exceed the threshold of 30 hours in 30 

consecutive days, as defined by the rule. Workers are given the option to decline 

participation after the benefits of monitoring are explained to them at the clinic. 

An employee who has declined to participate may chose to opt into the 

monitoring program at a later date if they remain eligible, but unless they ask to 

participate, monitoring is not required to be offered to them again. Workers who 

participate receive baseline cholinesterase testing, which includes both red blood 

cell (RBC) and serum levels, prior to use of covered pesticides. Cholinesterase 

levels are tested periodically during the application season and are compared to 

baseline cholinesterase levels. A 20 percent or more decrease from baseline for 

either RBC or serum indicates a cholinesterase depression and requires the 

employer to perform a workplace evaluation. A decrease of greater than or equal 

to 30 percent for RBC cholinesterase or greater than or equal to 40 percent for 

serum cholinesterase from baseline requires employers to remove the handler 

from exposure to cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. The level of cholinesterase 

depression reported dictates the employer’s response. 

To encourage participation in cholinesterase monitoring, L&I has held numerous 

outreach and training workshops on the monitoring rule for grower and medical 

provider communities throughout the state. 

Cholinesterase Monitoring Results 

Based on the Scientific Advisory Committee for Cholinesterase Monitoring final 

report, Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2004 –

2006, in 2006: 

Two hundred forty four employers had their employees participate in baseline 

testing, a 31 percent decrease from 2005 and a 34 percent decrease from 2004. 

The largest number of participants from one employer was 148, the median was 

four per employer, and the mean was 7.7 handlers per employer. (See Table 39 

for baseline and periodic test numbers by employer size and by year.) 

• 1889 employees participated in the program, a 17 percent decrease from 

2005 and a 29 percent decrease from 2004. Each enrolled worker had a 

baseline test. 

• 471 (25%) of these workers reached the pesticide-handling hour 

threshold of 30 hours in 30 consecutive days and received subsequent 

periodic testing. 

• 57 (11%) of the participants with periodic tests had at least one 

cholinesterase depression of more than 20 percent from baseline. 

Depressions in these 57 workers triggered their employers to perform a 

workplace evaluation and generated alerts to L&I. 

96 L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
• Seven of these alerts were issued to workers with cholinesterase 

depressions requiring removal from further exposures to cholinesterase 

inhibiting pesticides (depressions greater than or equal to 30 percent for 

RBC and 40 percent for serum). Four of these workers had depressions 

triggering workplace evaluations, continued to work, and had subsequent 

periodic tests with depressions severe enough to trigger removal from 

pesticide exposure. 

• In 2006, L&I offered work place evaluations and consultations to 

employers with employees whose cholinesterase levels were depressed 

to the workplace evaluation or exposure removal levels. Compliance 

inspections were triggered by multiple depressions with the same 

employer. 

Table 39. Baseline and Periodic Testing for Cholinesterase Monitoring 

Participants by # of Handlers per Employer, 2006 

Number 

Handlers per 

Employer 

Number 

Employers 

Total 

Number of 

Employees 

with 

Base lines 

Number and Percent 

Handlers with at 

Least One 

Depression 

Number and Percent 

Handlers with at Least 

One Periodic Test 

> 50 5 463 129 (28%) 11 (9%) 

11 - 49 37 747 189 (25%) 32 (17%)* 

1 – 10 202 679 154 (23%) 14 (9%) 

Total 2006 244 1889 471 (25%) 57 (12%) 

Total 2005 312 2263 611 (27%) 59 (10%) 

Total 2004 370 2655 580 (22%) 119 (21%) 

* Eight of these participants worked for a single employer. This is the largest number of employees 

with significant ChE depression from a single employer.

To assess declinations and numbers of eligible handlers who are opting out of 

participation, L&I surveyed five health care clinics that performed about 75 

percent of the total baseline cholinesterase tests in 2005. These health care 

clinics estimated the proportion of eligible handlers who were referred to the 

clinic but declined baseline testing. All clinics had declination estimates less than 

the 15 percent declination rate anticipated in the 2003 Cholinesterase Monitoring 

Small Business Economic Impact Statement. The total number of participants 

went down each year, but the rate for persons getting follow-up testing 

fluctuated. In an effort to determine the most likely causes for the decrease in 

participants from 2004 to 2006, L&I investigated about 25 percent of employers 

who ceased participating in ChE monitoring between the second and third years. 

These investigations provided evidence for the first three reasons presented 

below. 

Factors that might have contributed to a decrease in participating employers in 

2006 include: 

• Changes in pesticide use patterns, including eliminating the use of 

covered pesticides or applying less of the covered pesticide; 

• Lessening handler exposure below the 30-hour time period for 

mandatory testing through handler rotation or an increase in the number 

of pesticide applicators; 

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 97
• Increased handling of pesticides by those not covered under the rule 

(e.g., owner administration of covered pesticides) 

• Employer non-compliance or handlers refusing to participate. 

Health care providers sent a report of the number of hours a worker handled 

cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides to the DOH Public Health Laboratory with the 

worker’s periodic test. DOH forwarded the handling hours information to L&I. 

From 2004 through 2006, on average, serum cholinesterase was shown to be 

depressed by 6.8 percent in periodically tested handlers. Red blood cell (RBC) 

enzyme activity has shown less frequent or extensive depression. Consistent 

with these observations are the results from analyses of handlers with prebaseline testing exposures to insecticides (i.e., working baselines). That subset 

of handlers also tended to have lower ChE levels in their baseline tests than 

handlers without pre-baseline exposures. 

Regardless of the lack of a strong correlation between hours worked and serum 

ChE depression, the consistency of observations for average population 

depressions suggest that exposures sufficient to depress at least serum ChE 

activity had occurred in a number of handlers. A small but significant relationship 

was found for serum cholinesterase. On average, a 0.053 percent serum 

cholinesterase depression could be expected for every hour spent handling 

category I or II organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. This equates 

to an approximate 1.5 percent serum cholinesterase depression for every 30 

hours spent handling in the 30 days prior to testing, a small decrease. 

If L&I finds that a worker experienced symptoms that could be associated with 

cholinesterase depression, the case is referred to DOH for investigation. L&I 

referred two 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 and 2006, L&I conducted confidential consultations with employers 

to evaluate workplaces where employees had cholinesterase depressions 

compared to their baseline tests. Because these consultations are confidential, 

they are not included in this report. During 2005, L&I also conducted research 

investigations with employers to evaluate workplaces where employees had 

cholinesterase depressions compared to their baseline tests. 

Preliminary results of cholinesterase monitoring for 2005 and 2006 were 

compared to results from 2004. Improvements in the 2005 cholinesterase 

monitoring program that were maintained in 2006 included: 1) faster laboratory 

turnaround of baseline tests (from 24 days to one or two days), 2) faster L&I 

notifications of depressions (from seven days to three days), and 3) decreased 

amount of time between notice of depression and initiation of an investigation 

(from 35 days to nine 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. 

98 L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
The Scientific Advisory Committee’s report on Cholinesterase Monitoring of 

Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2004 - 2006 is available online at: 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topi/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/2004-

06ChESACreport.pdf. 

L&I’s report to the legislature year 2004 of cholinesterase monitoring can be 

found at: 

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

nal.pdf. 

Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) 

Other DOSH Activities

To enforce safety and health in the workplace, L&I DOSH staff members may 

issue citations requiring employers to implement changes in the workplace. 

Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (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 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. If required changes in workplace safety and 

health have not been made, citations are reissued as ‘failure to abate’ the hazard 

with additional monetary penalties. 

This section summarizes results of pesticide-related safety and health 

inspections conducted by L&I DOSH. A description of each of the inspections is 

provided in Appendix C. The number of pesticide-related inspections decreased 

in 2005 (Figure 21). Of 31 total inspections, 24 (77%) were located in eastern 

Washington and seven were located in western Washington. 

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 99
Figure 21. DOSH Workplace Safety and Health Inspections, 2001 – 

2005 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

DOSH Inspections 

The decrease in the number of DOSH pesticide-related inspections in 2005 was 

partly due to discontinuation of the 2004 L&I program that targeted workplaces 

covered by the Cholinesterase Rule during 2005. 

Of 31 pesticide-related DOSH inspections in 2005, eight were referrals from state 

agencies, health care providers and others. An additional eight inspections were 

initiated in response to employee or employee representative complaints. Twelve 

were programmed inspections identified through the scheduling list and three 

were follow-up inspections. 

d in agricultural environments, and 

tion 

lon 

Twenty-six of the 2005 inspections occurre

five were in non-agricultural settings (see Figure 22). Eight (27%) of the 

inspections involved orchards. The “Other Agricultural” workplace classifica

included two berry farms, two cattle ranches or dairies and one vegetable/me

farm. Of five non-agricultural inspections, two involved transportation of 

pesticides, one was at a county auditor’s office, one was a lawn and garden 

service, and one was a catalogue and mail order provider whose shipping 

containers had been fumigated. 

100 L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
Figure 22. DOSH Pesticide-Related Inspections by Type of 

Workplace, 2005 

n = 31

Orchard (8)

 Wheat (3)

Forestry (4)

Non-Ag (5)

Nursery (6)

Other Ag (5)

DOSH Ins

L&I DOSH

L&I issued cit e employer in 26 inspections. Several inspections 

resulted in

failure to abate citations with monetary penalties of $3,850. Monetary penalties 

totaling $8 te” and 18 serious 

pesticide-r pesticiderelated citations with no penalties were issued in 17 of the 31 inspections. No 

pections Involving Violations 

 issues “general” and “serious” violations involving pesticides. In 2005, 

ations to th

 both serious and general citations, and one inspection generated 

,800 were assessed for three “failure to aba

elated citations from nine inspections. Sixty-eight general

citations were issued to the employer in five inspections. 

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 101
The llo

n 50 W, Actellic SE, Systec 

 nine citations were issued to the 

nes for the serious citations totaled $200.00. The general 

 capable of delivering at least 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) of water per minute for 

fifteen minutes was available at the pesticide mixing and loading or handler 

use of the 

njury. 

2) Employees had not received effective chemical hazard communication training on how to 

detect releases, the effects of over-exposure, etc. 

3) Employees had not had pesticide handler training in the last five years. 

4) The written respirator program was deficient. 

5) Required information was not provided to voluntary respirator users. 

6) Medical evaluations were not performed before determining an employee’s fitness to wear 

respirators. 

7) Annual fit-tests were not performed for employees required to wear respirators. 

8) Employees with beards were wearing respirators. 

9) The respirator storage did not protect the respirators from damage.

 fo wing is an example of a DOSH inspection involving violations: 

Employees were mixing and applying pesticides including Capta

1988, Truban 25 EC, Terraclor 75, and Thiram. After inspection,

employer for the following violations. Fi

citations did not involve monetary penalties. 

1) No eyewash

decontamination sites although the label requires protective eyewear beca

potential for eye i

The most frequent type of serious (18) and general (66) WISHA violations cited 

in 2005 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 missing 

written programs, chemical inventories, or MSDS, no employee training 

and insufficient chemical labeling 

loyees not trained about pesticides and their hazards or about field 

o required safety committee or safety meetings 

rientation on field sanitation 

• Accident Prevention Program deficiencies 

• Emp

sanitation 

• No eyewash provided 

• Deficiencies in appropriate personal protective equipment 

• No hand-washing facilities, no toilet 

• N

• Pesticides improperly stored, or stored with food, clothes or PPE 

• No o

102 L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
• Not posting safety, emergency or pesticide spray information as required 

No water or no single-use cups provided 

Abatement of previously cited hazards not certified 

Incomplete pesticide inventory 

l and serious violations involving pesticides are categorized by type of 

•

•

•

Genera

violation in Figure 2

F

P

3. 

igure 23. WISHA General and Serious Violations Involving 

esticides, 2005 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rogram

er of ns

Hazard Communication

Respiratory Protection

Accident Prevention P

Pesticide/Sanitation Training

Eyewash

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

No Soap/Towels/Toilet

Safety Committee/ Meetings 

Pesticides Storage

No First Aid Training

Posting Pesticide Info

No Water & Cups

Abatement Not Certified

Incomplete Pesticide Inventory

Numb Citatio

General Serious

L&I Claims Insurance Services Division, Claims Administratio 

P

The Insurance Services Division, Claims Administration Program processes 

epts or rejects a claim based on whether a work-related injury or illness is 

n

rogram 

workers’ compensation claims initiated by on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In 

2005, the Claims Administration Program received 93 claims where the injury or 

illness initially appeared to be related to pesticide exposure (Table 40). The 

number of pesticide-related claims in 2005 decreased from 2004 by eight 

percent. 

L&I acc

diagnosed. Compensation is determined in accordance with the following 

definitions:

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 103
• Medical Only/Non-Compensable Claim: A worker experienced symptoms 

ks 

he 

 is 

ee 

loyee. 

 All 

e 

im is rejected because objective evidence is lacking to 

e 

tive evidence of injury, the worker may not yet have symptoms 

documented. A rejected status can be ften reevaluated, 

t, once final, the worker can no longer reo a claim based on original 

ms b op re

years after the identification of the onset of delayed symptoms. Costs of 

 m y paid. 

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

mination can be made

ept on Salary: e employ elects ay the c imant’s salary instead 

of L&I paying time loss payments while the employee is recovering from 

or illne 

tu f Related to Pesticides, 2001 – 2005

that he/she believes occurred from exposure on-the-job and see

medical evaluation. The physician finds the symptoms related to t

exposure and there is objective evidence of injury. Therefore, the claim

allowed and medical evaluation and any follow-up medical 

care/treatment costs are paid. The employee misses less than thr

days of work. These lost workdays are not reimbursed to the emp

• 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.

related medical costs are covered. 

• Rejected Claims: Initial diagnostic and medical evaluation costs ar

covered but the cla

relate symptoms to the workplace exposure. Claims may be rejected 

because symptoms have resolved by the time treatment is obtained, ther

is no objec

of illness from the exposure, or exposure cannot be confirmed or 

appealed and is o

bu

sympto

pen 

. Illness claims may e either ened or opened up to two 

initial edical visits are usuall

deter . 

• K Th er to p la

an injury ss.

Table 40. Sta s o L&I Claims Initially

2001 2002 2003 2004 200

Kept on Salary 1 - - - - 

5 

Medical Only Non-compensable 75 79 83 70 62

Time Loss/ Compensable 8 4 4 4 2 

Rejected 45 26 45 26 29 

Pending/Unknown - - 1 1 - 

Total 129 109 133 101 93 

Claims categorized as Medical Only and Time Loss are compensated as workrelated injuries. Of the 93 claims in 2005, 62 (66.7%) were compensated by L&I 

as being work related injuries. L&I paid either time-loss or medical benefits for a 

total of $56,514.66. This figure includes costs of first visits and time lost on two 

cases. In 2005, there were slightly fewer claims than in each of the previous five 

years. 

As noted in the Rejected Claims definition above, most rejected claims were 

compensated for initial diagnostic and medical evaluations costs even if a 

determination could not be made to relate the symptoms to the work place. 

104 L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
L&I Claims Reported to Department of Health 

L&I refers clai

investigate 

reported a ated, then 

DOH cou

L&I referred 9

assessed 64 

assessed a

probably, or p

other 19 we ce to assess the link with 

pesticides, suspicious, or unlikely to be related to pesticide exposure. Of the 29 

claims that L&I rejected, DOH classified 17 as likely to be associated with 

f L&I Claims and DOH Classification Status, 2005 

ms involving pesticides to Department of Health (DOH) to 

whether the illness is pesticide-related. A claim that is initially 

s pesticide-related could be accepted by L&I as work-rel

ld investigate and classify it as unrelated to pesticide exposure. 

3 claims to DOH to investigate during 2005 (Table 41). L&I 

of the 93 claims as work-related. Of the 64 claims that L&I 

s valid work related injuries, DOH classified 45 (70%) as definitely, 

ossibly related to pesticides (DPP). Based on DOH criteria, the 

re classified as insufficient eviden

pesticide exposure (DPP). 

Table 41 illustrates the difference in evaluation criteria and perspective between

the two agencies. 

Table 41. Comparison o

DOH Classification 

L&I Claim 

Determination Definite Probable 

Not 

Possible Enough Suspicious Unlikely 

Info 

Total 

Medical Only/ 

Non-compensable 15 16 12 16 2 1 62 

Time Loss/ 

Compensable -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 

Rejected 1 5 11 8 2 2 29 

Pending/Unknown -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 

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

Total 16 22 24 24 4 3 93 

Sixty-five of the 93 claims L&I referred to DOH for evaluation were agricultural. 

DOH classified 41 of the 65 claims as DPP related to pesticide exposure. Of the 

41 DPP agricultural workers, 32 claims involved workers in the tree fruit industry, 

three involved the potato industry, and three were in nurseries or greenhouses. 

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 105
Agricultural case: A 47- year-old male mechanic in Benton County was drifted upon 

by an aerial application while fixing/welding a water pump in a potato circle. Another 

worker avoided exposure by staying inside of the truck. 

Non-agricultural case: A 31-year- old King County female office worker went into the 

office restroom immediately after it was treated for gnats. There was no placard 

posted. She developed upper respiratory symptoms within two to four minutes. She 

went to an ER where she was evaluated, treated, and released. The need to post a 

notification after pesticide applications and Pest Control Operator timing was 

discussed with human resources. 

The individuals in the 29 DPP non-agricultural cases worked in a variety of 

professions, including landscaping, construction, pest control, maintenance, 

parks, and others. Occupational exposures are described in detail in the DOH 

Section under Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness. 

106 L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
Washington Poison Center 

Washington Poison Center’s summary of phone calls received concerning human 

exposure to pesticides during 2005. 

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 2005, WPC received 2,430 calls concerning human exposures to pesticides. 

The percentage of pesticide-related human exposure calls relative to the total 

number of human exposure calls received by WPC increased slightly in the past 

two years (Table 42). 

Table 42. WPC Human Exposure to Pesticide Calls, 2001– 2005 

Pesticide 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fungicide 94 64 53 56 76

Herbicide 404 347 368 422 457

Fumigant 4 9 10 7 6

Insecticide 1,128 1,110 1,016 1,302 1,347

Insect repellent 89 96 156 155 137

Animal repellent 1 3 5 17 16

Moth repellent 53 40 30 39 35

Rodenticide 398 374 299 344 356

Total* 2,171 2,043 1,937 2,342 2,430

Percent of Total Human 

Exposure Calls 3% 2.9% 2.9% 3.5% 3.6%

Total WPC Human Exposure 

Calls** 71,675 70,298 65,857 67,517 67,986

* 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 Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 107
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. Most human exposure calls do not involve associated symptoms. 

Additional information about severity of human exposures is provided below. 

Calls to obtain pesticide information only 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 

chemical exposures, including pesticides, decreased here as well as in other 

areas throughout the Pacific Northwest. In 2004 and 2005, however, the number 

of human exposure calls increased slightly (Table 42). 

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 (DOH) (WAC 246-100-101). Health care 

providers may report cases by calling the WPC, who helps manage the case, 

then forwards information to DOH. 

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 then use 

a record review system, the Pesticide Illness Electronic Reporting System, to 

upload and view reports from WPC. 

DOH reviews reports of suspected pesticide illness incidents and conducts 

preliminary interviews to determine if 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 three months 

• the pesticide exposure occurred in Washington State 

• the pesticide exposure was not an intentional suicide gesture 

• the person sought care from a professional health care provider. 

An incident may involve multiple cases (persons) who experience pesticide 

illness. 

108 WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
By 2005, the electronic reporting system between WPC and DOH was fully 

implemented. Using this system, DOH reviewed all human pesticide-related 

illness calls to WPC and identified 130 calls for investigation. After investigation, 

DOH determined that 100 of the 130 calls involved illnesses definitely (33), 

probably (11), or possibly (56) related to the pesticide exposure (Table 43). 

These 100 illnesses are included in the detailed analyses of definite, probable, 

and possible cases in the DOH Section of this report. 

During the transition to electronic reporting (December 1, 2004 through March 

31, 2005), DOH conducted analyses on 55 WPC calls where the person did not 

seek medical care. These analyses are on page 65 in the DOH Section. 

Table 43. Pesticide-related Calls to WPC Investigated by DOH, 2001 – 2005 

Year Investigated by DOH DOH DPP (%)* 

2001 68 30 (44%) 

2002 106 73 (69%) 

2003 122 88 (72%) 

2004 150 128 (85%) 

2005 130 100 (77%) 

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

the pesticide exposure.

Of the 100 WPC calls that DOH determined to be illnesses definitely, probably or 

possibly related to pesticides in 2005, 68 involved residential exposures, 13 

involved agricultural exposures, and 17 occurred in other public settings. Two 

exposure sites were unknown. 

In 2005, there were 14 WPC calls involving children under the age of 19 that 

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

exposure. Of these: 

• Three children were sprayed with aerosol pesticides either by 

themselves or another child. 

• Two children got lice shampoo in their eyes. 

• Two children ingested the product (roach powder or flea shampoo). 

• Three children had symptoms from breathing in smoke (two were from 

burning pesticide containers; one was from a gopher bomb). 

• One teen retail worker was exposed to a damaged box of pesticides. 

WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 109
The following case examples describe two incidents where children 

inappropriately or accidentally released pesticide products themselves. 

A 10-year-old boy and his friend were playing video games at his friend’s home. His 

friend sprayed an aerosol insect repellent and an aerosol deodorant in the game room. 

The boys continued to play in the room for three hours. The 10-year-old boy developed 

blurry vision and a cough, went home, showered, and changed clothes. The next day his 

mother took him to a health clinic where the attending nurse called WPC. 

A 3-year-old girl found an aerosol insect repellent in a diaper bag while in a shopping cart 

at a grocery store. She sprayed herself in the eye. Her mother immediately flushed the 

child’s eyes at the store eye wash station and then took her to a clinic where the child's 

eyes were flushed again. The health clinic called WPC for information. 

Type of Pesticides Involved in WPC Human Exposure Calls 

As in the past, more than half of the human exposure calls involved insecticides. 

Table 44 illustrates WPC exposure calls by pesticide type for different age 

groups for 2005. Of all pesticide calls, 1,347 (55%) were about insecticides. 

In 2005, WPC received 457 calls about potential herbicide exposures, 

representing 19 percent of the 2,430 pesticide calls (Table 40). One hundred 

twenty four (27%) of herbicide calls involved 2,4-D or other chlorophenoxy 

herbicides (i.e., MCPA, MCPP, and 2,4,5-T) and 142 (31%) involved exposure to 

glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round-up). 

Table 44. WPC Pesticide-Related Exposures By Age of Case, 2005 

Pesticide Type <6 Years 6-19 Years >19 Years Unknown 

Age Total Calls 

Fungicide 18 8 43 7 76 

Herbicide 100 60 293 4 457 

Fumigant 0 2 4 0 6 

Insecticide 405 155 766 21 1,347 

Animal repellent 6 1 9 0 16 

Insect repellent 81 30 26 0 137 

Moth repellent 16 2 17 0 35 

Rodenticide 248 20 87 1 356 

Totals 874 278 1,245 33 2,430 

110 WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 45 lists the types of insecticides involved in human exposure calls to WPC 

for 2001 through 2005. Because the product involved in an incident frequently 

involves more than one type of pesticide, the totals over-represent the number of 

people exposed. 

Table 45. WPC Type of Insecticide Involved in Human Exposure Calls, 

2001 – 2005 

Generic description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Arsenic 3 6 8 5 5 

Borates/Boric Acid 20 33 22 29 49 

Carbamate only 35 46 37 60 47 

Carbamate with other pesticides 6 9 19 27 23 

Chlorinated hydrocarbon only 48 29 26 20 20 

Chlorinated hydrocarbon with other insecticide 2 4 3 4 14 

Metaldehyde 26 31 22 36 56 

Organophosphate only 209 198 124 137 130 

Organophosphate with carbamate 3 4 0 1 3 

Organophosphate with chlorinated hydrocarbons 4 1 0 0 0 

Organophosphate with other pesticide 26 36 28 45 26 

Organophosphate/Carbamate/Chlorinated hydrocarbons 0 1 0 0 0 

Piperonyl butoxide/Pyrethrins/Pyrethroids 432 418 405 529 542 

Repellents (Insect) 89 96 156 155 137 

Rotenone 1 2 1 3 1

Veterinary insecticide 74 6 6 11 12 

Other 114 155 181 266 282 

Unknown 123 128 128 124 135 

Total 1,217 1,203 1,166 1,452 1,482 

In 2005, 229 (15%) of the insecticide-related calls involved organophosphates 

(159) and carbamates (70). 

WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 111
Severity of Human Exposures to Pesticides 

WPC classifies human exposure calls by severity of medical outcome. Definitions 

used by WPC to define severity are listed below: 

Minor Effect Symptoms are minimally bothersome and resolve rapidly 

(e.g., skin irritation, first-degree skin burn, transient 

cough, mild systemic symptoms such as nausea or 

headache). 

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). 

Moderate Effect 

Symptoms are life-threatening or result in significant 

residual disability. Medical treatment is required (e.g., 

repeated seizures, acute cholinergic crisis, respiratory 

compromise requiring intubation). 

Major Effect 

WPC follows up on calls by calling back to the home, workplace, or health care 

facility for 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 investigated by DOH because of differences in 

agency classification criteria. DOH primarily investigates WPC referrals where 

medical care was sought. Table 46 shows the disposition of WPC calls by 

medical outcome. 

In 2005, 52 (2%) pesticide-related human exposure calls involved moderate or 

major health effects. 

Fifty (2%) pesticide-related calls involved intentional exposure. 

112 WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Table 46. WPC Human Exposure Calls by Medical Outcome/Disposition*, 2005 

Follow-up 

No health effect 78 

Minor health effect/outcome 167 

Moderate health effect/outcome 49 

Major health effect/outcome 3 

Death (probable suicide) 1 

No Follow-up 

Nontoxic exposure 258 

Minimal toxicity expected 1,589 

Potentially toxic exposure** 37 

Unrelated 248 

Total (follow-up and no follow-up) 2,430 

* Cases coded as ‘confirmed non-exposure’ are not included. 

** Cases where the caller either refused to provide a name or contact information or there are other 

circumstances that did not allow follow-up.

WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 113

Appendix A 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and 

Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel 

Pesticide Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090 

2006 PIRT Panel Representatives 

Pesticide Incident Definition 

Primary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticides Exposure 

Agency Response Time Mandates 

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 2006 Annual Report 113
2005 and 2006 PIRT Panel Representatives 

Department of Health (Chair)........................ Marianne Guichard, Rob Duff 

Department of Agriculture ............................. Ann Wick 

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

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

Department of Labor and Industries ............. Gabrielle Toutonghi, Pam Edwards 

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 

2005 and 2006 PIRT Panel Coordinators 

Department of Health.................................... Lucy Harter, Fran McBride 

114 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
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 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 115
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.

116 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 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 Act; Hazardous Waste 

Management Act; Chapter 70.105D RCW, Model Toxics Control Act; 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 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 117
forest chemicals. The elements of the program that apply to pesticides involve 

issuing permits for pesticide applications in forests and monitoring permit 

restrictions. 

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. 

118 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report
Appendix B 

Case and Severity Classifications 

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications 

NIOSH Severity Classifications 

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category 

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 exposure-health 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 exposure-health 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. 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 119
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 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 exposure-health 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. 

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 Severe illness or injury: Considered life threatening and typically 

requires treatment. Commonly involves hospitalization to prevent death. Signs 

and symptoms include, but 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.

120 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
ORGAN SYSTEM SEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODE 

FATAL HIGH MODERATE 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category (Modeled after Persson et. al., 1998 and includes SPIDER database elements) 

1 2 3 

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

••

• •

••

••••••

Gastrointestinal System 

Massive hemorrhage/perforation of gut Diarrhea (G14, sign only) 

Melena (GI7) Vomiting (GI6, sign only) 

AbdAnoConDiar

NauVom

Respiratory System •

••

•••••

•••

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

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

CouUpp

Dysp

sym

Nervous System •

••

••••••••

••••••

Coma (NS3) Paralysis, generalized (NS10) 

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) 

HypProfDizzHea

Seizure (NS5, sign only) 

Atax

Peri
Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 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

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) 

Feve

Renal System •

•

•••

Anuria (GU2) •Renal failure 

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

Poly

Muscular system • •

••

•

•

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

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

Mus

Mus

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 IrritaHive

Local effects on eye • •

•

•

•••

Corneal ulcer/perforation Corneal abrasion (EYE3) 

Ocular burn (EYE2) 

LacrMydMiosOcu(diag

Other effects •

•

Fatig

122 

Mala
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 

WSDA 2005 Case Data

Douglas

PI

notification

Commercial 2/18/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide

boric acid none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C001 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Applicator applied without notifying school so the school could not notify students, staff, parents. / Verified. Also did not submit re

site.

Douglas

PI

drift to property

Private Applicator 3/6/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide Fungicide

sulfur oil none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C002 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application of lime-sulfur to pears drifted on cars and house / Verified.

Grant

PNI

misuse

NA 1/10/2005

same day

0NA

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C003 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Complainant thought neighbor was poisoning his willows. / Complaint was left on voicemail. Returned call by voicemail. No furth

Complainant could not be located.

Grant

PI

human exposure - drift

Priv Ap / Comm Consultant 3/18/2005

same day

3yes

Insecticide Insecticide

chlorpyrifos oil DOH NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C004 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Airblast application to apples drifted on car, driver and child. Adult and child became ill with rash and vomiting. / Residues found 

washed) and vegetation by site. DOH "probable" on illness. Dr. not told of possible exposure.

Chelan

PI

human exposure - drift

Private Applicator 3/28/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide

diazinon none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C005 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift occurring from application to cherries. Says he can taste the spray drift. / Anonymous complaint. Could not find complainant

site.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Chelan

PNI

exam fraud

NA 8/10/2004

same day

1no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C006 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Person who took the exam was not the person listed on the application. / Verified, but could not determine the guilty party. The 

used did not appear to be involved.

Douglas

PNI

bee kill

NA unknown

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C007 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Bee kill. / Death of hive due to loss of queens. Hive split and may have been moved before recovery.

Douglas

PI

human exposure - drift

Private Applicator 5/3/2005

same day

3no

Insecticide Fungicide

carbaryl novaluron DOH NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C008 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Airblast application to apples drifted on nearby residence. / Verified. Two women became ill (respiratory symptoms) after smelling 

detected. No medical sought.

Chelan

PI

misuse

NA 4/30/2005

one day

1no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C009 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Complainant stated wetland was sprayed. / Could not verify that standing water was present at time of application.

Chelan

PI

drift to property

unknown 5/5/2005

same day

1no

unknownunknown none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C010 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift to property from orchard. / Phone was system not working so the complaint one month old. Complainant wished to drop cas

since been more careful.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Chelan

PI

drift to car

Private Applicator 5/12/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide Insecticide

sevin myclobutanil none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C011 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Car drifted on from an application to apples. / Verified. Residue of both pesticides was found off target.

Chelan

unknown

misuse

unknown unknown

same day

3no

unknownunknown none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C012 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Grape plants, maples, lilacs and rose bushes were killed along driveway. Thinks it may be due to neighbor's application. / No an

of finding infractor. No cost analysis of loss.

Douglas

PI

drift to cars

Private Applicator 5/23/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

carbaryl none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C013 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Airblast application to cherries drifted across highway and on passing cars. / Verified. Observation by WSDA employee.

Grant

PI

drift to crop

Unlicensed 5/10/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

unknown none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C014 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide sprayed on roads and rights-of-way drifted and damaged onion field. / General use products applied. No residue found 

carry over from earlier applications.

Chelan

PI

license/posting

Commercial 5/25/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide

phenoxy none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C015 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA observed an application being made to landscaping without a license on the vehicle. No posting done. / Verified

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Grant

PI

drift to ornamentals

Commercial 5/20/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide Herbicide

bentazone imazamax none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C016 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Aerial application drifted to ornamentals. / Sample was positive for product in a recent application but may be from carry over.

Chelan

PI

drift to house

Private Applicator 6/1/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide Insecticide

spinosad tebuconazole none Verbal Warning 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C017 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to cherry orchard drifting towards complainant's house. Smelled product. / Verified. Residues on vegetation by house

Douglas

PI

drift to houses

Private Applicator 5/31/2005

one day

2no

Insecticide

spinosad none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C018 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application from two airblast sprayers was observed drifting towards houses in strong winds. / Verified. Residue found.

Chelan

PI

human exposure-drift

Commercial 6/2/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

glyphosate none Verbal Warning 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C019 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Bus driver said he inhaled pesticide through open window when at intersection. / Applicator said he applied glyphosate. Detecta

application site but not on bus or driver.

Chelan

PI

drift to grapes

unknown 6/1/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

phenoxy none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C020 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide damage to grapes. / Unknown source, no record of leaf indexing for timing. No source found.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Chelan

PNI

direct spray to school bus

Private Applicator 6/5/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C021 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Airblast sprayer drenched windshield of school bus while spraying cherries. / Sprayers were applying water and vapor guard to d

pesticides involved. Advised grower it would be good to employ spotter to avoid spaying vehicles.

Grant

PI

human exposure

NA 6/9/2005

same day

3no

Insecticide

organophosphate DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C022 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Irrigation district employee hospitalized. Symptoms of OP poisoning. / Apparent gradual poisoning from exposure while deliverin

week exposure and feeling ill. New person provided with PPE, growers cooperating in providing notification.

Chelan

PI

drift to homes

Private Applicator 6/13/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

carbaryl none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C023 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA investigator observed drift of pesticide towards adjoining homes. / Residue found on neighboring day care and residence

Douglas

PI

human exposure-drift

Private Applicator 6/23/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

thiomethoxam bifenzate oil DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C024 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Two persons felt spray on face and arms while neighbor spraying pears with airblast sprayer. / No residue found off target. No ev

Chelan

PI

misuse

Commercial 6/28/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

phenoxy DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C025 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Said county made him control weeds and he and dog became ill from pesticides. Original complaint was pesticides being sprayed 

creek area. / No evidence of pesticides sprayed near creek. No evidence of person or dog ill. County did not mandate use of pes

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Grant

PI

human exposure -drift

Private Applicator 6/28/2005

same day

4no

Insecticide Insecticide

azinphos-methyl carbaryl DOH NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C026 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Two apple thinners hospitalized after neighboring orchard application drifted on them. / Verified. Workers went to health clinic wit

symptoms. Numerous WPS violations also.

Grant

PNI

drift to crop

Commercial Jun-05

same day

1no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C027 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide drift from aerial application to nearby potato fields. / Trees showing sulfonylurea damage but appears to be from previo

application drift - other causes.

Chelan

PI

license

Unlicensed 7/11/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C028 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Commercial application being made without a commercial license. / Verified. Person had only a Private Applicator's license.

Clark

PI

human exposure-notification

Commercial 7/13/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

2,4-D MCPP dicamba DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C029 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Two persons ill from spraying done on school grounds. Had asked to be notified. / School had asked applicator to notify and he d

residue detected on complainant's property. No exposure verified. No requirement to notify. Forms provided to complainant for Pe

Chelan

PI

human exposure-drift

Private Applicator 7/20/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide Insecticide

acetamiprid fenpyroximate none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C030 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift of smelly substance on his car on two occasions during night drive. / Verified drift on car. Residue found inside and outside v

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Grant

PI

human exposure-drift

Commercial 7/11/2005

same day

3no

Insecticide Fungicide

thiomethoxam mancozeb DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C031 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift from aerial application to potatoes resulted in possible human exposure. / Residue found off target. Human exposure not pro

Grant

PI

drift to crop

unknown 6/10/2005

four days

2no

Herbicide

phenoxy none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C032 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Growers noticed 2,4-D symptoms in vineyard. / Symptoms observed, grower withdrew complaint.

Chelan

PNI

licenses

Private Applicator 8/1/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C033 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Complainant stated orchards being sprayed by non-licensed commercial applicators. / Applicators had leased land and were wor

Grant

PNI

drift to crop

Commercial 8/3/2006

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C034 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Suspects aerial application to potatoes or mint drifted to his apple orchard. Damaged trees and fruit. / Damage due to application 

not drift from pesticides.

Douglas

PI

drift to cars

Private Applicator 8/2&3/05

same day

2no

Insecticide

Azinphos-methyl none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C035 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor drifted pesticides to his residence and parked cars while spraying apples. / WSDA detected residue on property, garag

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Grant

PNI

drift to crop

NA 7/5/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA WSU NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C036 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Red spotting on cherry leaves and trees defoliating rapidly. Suspects desiccant drift from potato field. / Damage due to disease, b

Douglas

PI

drift off target

Private Applicator 8/24/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

Azinphos-methyl none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C037 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA observed drift from airblast application to apples. Denied entry to conduct WPS and Use inspections. / Warrants obtained

label, recordkeeping and WPS violations.

Douglas

PI

drift off target

Private Applicator 8/31/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide Fungicide

acetamiprid thiram none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C038 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA observed drift from application to orchard. Plume drifting towards housing development. Grower denied entry to orchard fo

Residue off target.

Douglas

PNI

unsecured containers

Private Applicator 8/31/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C039 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Pesticide containers left by mix/load site and unsecured. / Visited site. Only container seen was properly secured.

Chelan

PNI

drift on car

Private Applicator 9/8/2005

one day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C040 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Complainant's car was drifted on by airblast application to apples. / Product applied was calcium, not a pesticide. Advised to be m

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Chelan

PNI

disposal of containers

Private Applicator 9/19/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA DOE NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# C041 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Disposal of pesticide containers in burn pile. / Containers removed before pile burned.

Grant

PNI

no chemigation records

Commercial ongoing

same Day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# G001 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Have not received chemigation records for a number of years. / Verified

Grant

PI

human exposure-drift

Public Operator 9/5/2005

same Day

2no

Insecticide

naled DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# G002 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Three people exposed to mosquito fogging insecticide. / Verified. People had symptoms but did not see a doctor.

Grant

PI

drift to crop

Commercial 9/5/2005

three days

3no

Desiccant

glufosinate-ammonium Food Safety NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# G003 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Potato desiccant drift to apples. / Two orchards involved, drift verified on one- not the other. No residue on fruit. Economic damag

Grant

PI

human exposure- direct

Commercial 8/31/2005

three days

3no

Insecticide

bifenthrin DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# G004 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Spider control spray onto building drifted into dining room of nursing home. Staff person wiped up liquid with bare hands, suffered 

lost three days work. / Verified.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Grant

PI

animal exposure - direct

Commercial 10/7/2005

one day

4no

Fumigant

metam-sodium Vet NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# G005 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Metam-sodium overspray onto pasture and trees. One horse ill. / Sprayed with end gun. Field man did not know how to shut off. 

Spokane

PNI

draining hot tub killed trees

NA unknown

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S001 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Claims draining of hot tub may have caused trees to die. / Hot tub had not been used for many years. No pesticides detected. Ca

Whitman

PI

drift to crops

Commercial 4/8/2005

same day

1no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S002 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide drift to nursery plants from application to wheat. / No evidence observed drift occurred. No residues detected.

Whitman

PI

spill of pesticide-treated grain

NA 3/31/2005

10 days

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S003 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Large-scale spill of pesticide-treated grain within city limits. / Referral from DOE. Attempts to contact complainant were not succe

grain was seen. Complainant was eventually contacted but did not meet with WSDA. Could not verify complaint.

Spokane

PNI

WDO

SPI 11/7/2004

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S004 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Missed termite infestation during WDO/SPI inspection. / Verified.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Spokane

PNI

license

Commercial 4/13/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S005 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Commercial spray truck without markings, alleged to be unlicensed. / Truck properly marked and licenses OK.

Walla Walla 

PI

bird deaths - misuse

Commercial 4/7/2005

one day

1no

Rodenticide

unknown DOE NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S006 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Anonymous complaint to DOE that many birds were dying after rodenticide application to school grounds. / Custodian reported o

No dead or dying birds observed. Crow not found. No children present (spring break).

Adams

PNI

license

Unlicensed ongoing

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S007 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Commercial business operating without insurance or license. / Verified.

Adams

PI

drift to crops

Commercial 4/7/2005

same day

4no

Herbicide

glyphosate none Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S008 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Aerial application to fallow ground damaged wheat. / Verified. Damage over $1000.

Adams

PI

drift to crops

Commercial 4/7/2005

same day

4no

Herbicide

glyphosate none Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S009 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Aerial application to fallow ground damaged wheat. / Verified. Damage over $1000.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Spokane

PNI

WDO

SPI 2/18/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none Verbal Warning 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S010 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Structural pest inspector missed termite infestation. / Small infestation very difficult to see. Verbal warning about subtle indicators

Spokane

PI

human exposure -drift

Commercial 4/24/1998

same day

1no

Herbicide Herbicide

thifensulfuron-methyl bromoxynil DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S011 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Driving open vehicle and exposed to pesticide drift. / Residue from car did not match application. Person imprecise about locatio

Spokane

PI

direct damage

Commercial 4/29/2005

same day

4no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S012 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Contaminated tree and shrub application damaged landscape plants. / Verified. Commercial applicator accidentally had herbicide 

mix. Damage over $16,000. Twenty-three customers affected.

Spokane

PI

misuse

Public Operator 5/6/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

2,4-D none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S013 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Misapplication to wetland. / No evidence applied to water. Label allows near water.

Pend Oreille

PI

drift to ornamentals

Commercial 5/9/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

2,4-D none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S014 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide drift to ornamental greenhouse from pasture application. / Detection found half way to greenhouse. No symptoms seen 

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

E WA

PNI

license

Commercial ongoing

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC? 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S015 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Operating without a licensed person on site, no insurance. / License current at the time.

Spokane

PI

direct damage

Commercial 3/1/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide

dormant oil WSU NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S016 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Dormant oil spray applied to trees killing them. / No evidence oil spray harmed trees. Cause unknown.

Spokane

PNI

drift to ornamentals

Unlicensed 5/15/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S017 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor's application of herbicides damaged ornamentals. / Injury caused by insects. No drift damage seen on ornamentals.

Spokane

PI

human exposure-drift

Public Operator 5/11/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

dicamba DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S018 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Person ill from drift of pesticide. Went to emergency room. / No evidence drift occurred. Doctor report said exposure unlikely. Pro

Spokane

PI

notification

Commercial 5/25/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

2.4-D NA NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S019 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Person not notified before landscape application. / Verified. Person on pesticide sensitive list.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Spokane

PI

drift to crops

Public Operator Spring 2005

same day

1no

Herbicide Herbicide

2,4-D picloram none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S020 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift from ROW to lentil field damaged crop. / No evidence of drift. Damage may be due to flooding.

Lincoln

PI

direct damage

Commercial May-05

same day

4no

Herbicide Herbicide

metsulfuron-methyl MCPA none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S021 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide application to winter wheat damaged crop. / Verified. Contrary to label - wheat past jointing stage.

Whitman

PI

drift to crops

Commercial 5/23/2005

same day

4no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S022 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Aerial application to wheat damaged peas. / Could not determine source of damage. Numerous applications in area.

Spokane

PI

drift to ornamentals

Commercial 6/15/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

phenoxy none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S023 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Complaint about odor, and that application to a pasture drifted to ornamentals. / No symptoms on property or nearby after one w

case.

Whitman

PNI

concern about application

NA Jun-05

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S024 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Concerned that apartment manager was going to apply pesticides and affect health. / No products applied as yet. Will do spot sp

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Lincoln

PI

drift to property

Commercial Spring 2005

same day

1no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S025 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift to adjacent property. / No residue found, no damage symptoms.

Adams

PI

drift to vineyard

unknown spring 2005

same day

3no

Herbicide

phenoxy none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S026 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide drift to vineyard. / Did not record development data so could not determine date and therefore source.

Lincoln

PI

drift to vineyard

unknown Summer 20

same day

2no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S027 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide drift to vineyard. / Did not record development data so could not determine date and therefore source.

Spokane

PI

direct - misuse

Commercial 7/1/2005

same day

4no

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide

diuron 2,4-D glyphosate none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S028 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to ornamentals damaged them. / Verified. Commercial applicator applied herbicides contrary to label. Damage aroun

Spokane

PI

direct - misuse

Commercial 7/1/2005

same day

4no

Herbicide

diuron none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S029 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to ornamentals damaged them. / Verified. Commercial applicator applied herbicides contrary to label. Damage aroun

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Spokane

PI

direct - misuse

Unlicensed 7/18/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide

glyphosate none Verbal Warning 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S030 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor's application damaged his lawn along shared fence line. / Verified. About three inch wide strip of grass damaged along 

to be careful.

Spokane

PI

direct-misuse

unknown 7/1/2005

same day

4no

Herbicide

Miscellaneous none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S031 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Trees along river by condominiums dying. / Nine trees had holes drilled in them and herbicides detected. Could not determine so

Spokane

PNI

direct

Unknown 6/6/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S032 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Horse chestnut tree damaged by June insecticide application. / Damage due to leaf blotch and powdery mildew.

Lincoln

PI

drift to crops

Commercial 6/7/2005

same day

3no

Insecticide

thiocarbamate none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S033 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to potato field drifted and damaged wheat. / Damage not noticed until harvest. No evidence could be obtained. Most o

Spokane

PNI

direct - misuse

NA 8/5/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S034 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbors damaged lawn while on vacation. / Damage due to cultural practices. Drought.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Asotin

PI

drift - trees

Public Operator Spring 2005

same day

2no

Herbicides

diuron glyphosate none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S035 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

DOT damaged trees with ROW applications. / Residue detected from plants. Probably drift of diuron, glyphosate - source undete

Whitman

PI

direct - misuse

unknown 7/5/2005

same day

3no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous Sheriff referred 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S036 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Alleges former students sprayed pesticide mixture onto lawns, plants, etc. Sheriff investigating. / Verified. Deliberate. Turned ove

Adams

PI

drift to crops

unknown 8/5/2005

one day

0no

Herbicide

unknown none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S037 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift to potato field. / Complainant failed to provide requested information. Case closed.

Spokane

PI

drift - trees

Public Operator before 2005

same day

4no

Herbicides

bromacil diuron none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S038 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application along road damaged trees. / Verified. Off- label use -near the roots of desirable trees.

Adams

PI

ineffective application

unknown 2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

unknown none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S039 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to kochia ineffective. / Case closed - no further information provided by complainant.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Franklin

PI

distribution/unregistered

Unlicensed 3/21/2005

same day

1no

SurfactantSurfactant none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# S040 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Distribution of unregistered surfactant. / Not verified. Product substituted for registered product.

Multiple

PI

distribution

Dealer 1/28/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T001 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Chemical company offered for sale unregistered products. Complainant asked for definition of distribution. / Process for state con

and agencies will be clear that only registered products can be on state contracts.

King

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 9/18/2004

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T002 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thorough inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

Thurston

PNI

license

Unlicensed 2/2/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T003 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Advertising as a licensed structural pest inspector without a license. / Verified.

King

PNI

incomplete WDO report

SPI 2/7/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T004 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failed to provide WDO records on request. / Verified

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PNI

license

Unlicensed 2/25/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T005 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Advertising as a licensed structural pest inspector without a license. / Verified.

Pierce

PNI

disposal

Commercial 2/17/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T006 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Commercial company dumping pesticides on property. / Not verified. No evidence to substantiate complaint.

Multiple

PI

distribution

Dealer 1/28/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T007 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Chemical company offered for sale unregistered products. Complainant asked for definition of distribution. / Process for state con

and agencies will be clear that only registered products can be on state contracts.

Thurston

PI

improper PPE

Unlicensed 3/7/2005

same day

2no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T008 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA observed application to landscape without proper PPE. / Company not licensed to make applications, no insurance, faile

post and used pesticides inconsistent with label.

Snohomish

PI

drift to property

Unlicensed 3/9/2005

same day

0yes

Herbicides

glyphosate DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T009 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor's application drifting and damaging her plants. Thinks may affect child's health. / No evidence of any drift. Withdrew co

problems.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Thurston

PI

records

Unlicensed 3/23/2005

same day

1no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T010 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA observed application to landscape without proper PPE. / Company not licensed to make applications, no insurance, faile

post and used pesticides inconsistent with label. Records on applications not sent in. (Same as case T008)

King

PNI

WDO records

SPI 3/16/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T011 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failed to provide WDO records on second request.

Clark

PI

direct

Commercial 3/21/2005

five days

0no

Fungicide

Copper none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T012 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Copper spray to apples drifted to nursery plants and damaged them. / Damage due to bacterial disease.

Pierce

PI

use inspection deficiencies, WPS

Private Applicator 4/19/2005

same day

2no

MiscellaneousMiscellaneous none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T013 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Follow-up use inspection at farm previously issued an NOC found application without direct supervision, faulty, careless, negligen

WSDA, no WPS training, WPS problems.

Clallam

PI

sale of no registered pesticides

Unlicensed 11/16/2004

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T014 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Sale of unregistered 25(b) products. / Verified.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PI

human exposure - drift

Commercial 4/19/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

permethrin DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T015 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Landscape application drifted and entered her property. Felt on arm and had headache. / No evidence that pesticide application 

Numerous other application deficiencies.

Thurston

PI

drift to property

Unlicensed 4/17/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

unknown none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T016 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Ortho wasp and bee killer used along fence and damaged her plants. / Unknown which product used, several labels of similar typ

of desirable plants. Probably solvent damage.

King

PI

misuse

Unlicensed 3/1/2005

same day

4no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous Police NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T017 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Several neighbors reported trees damaged . Alleged to be blocking view. / Verified. One person apparently cut plants and/or app

shrubs.

Island

PI

misuse

Unlicensed 4/15/2005

same day

2no

Herbicides 

phenoxy none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T018 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Said neighbor damaged her trees with herbicide. / Symptoms seen on plants on fence line, no source found.

Skagit

PI

human exposure- drift

Unlicensed 4/28/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T019 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor sprayed pasture and spray contacted her arm. / No residue on cast (one arm) and no injury noted to complainant's yar

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Skagit

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 6/21/1999

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T020 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct through inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

Skagit

PI

license

Unlicensed 3/22/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide

cyfluthrin none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T021 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Applied pesticide commercially to control ants without a license. / Verified. Did not keep records.

Snohomish

PI

dog death

Commercial 4/27/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide Insecticide

phenoxy potassium salts State Vet NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T022 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Puppy died after application made to lawn. / Vet report did not attribute death to pesticides. Puppy not in good health. No evidenc

target. Numerous operating and licensing violations.

Skagit

PI

drift to plants

Private Applicator 5/1/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

clomazone none Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T023 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift from application to ornamentals. / No residue found but symptoms consistent with clomazone. May have been residue left in 

Skagit

PI

misuse

unknown 4/15/2005

same day

3no

Herbicide

phenoxy none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T024 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Trees damages from herbicide spray. / Verified. Trees allegedly blocking view. Could not find source.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PNI

records request

Private Comm Ap 6/1/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T025 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA requested records from 4 applicators. / No records received.

Grays Harbor

PI

human exposure -drift

Private Applicator 6/1/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

chlorpyridazin DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T026 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WSDA Sudden Oak Death inspectors contacted spray when doing green house inspections. / Applications made properly with W

employees were on site without escort. NOC on recordkeeping violations.

King

PI

misuse

Unlicensed 5/15/2005

four days

3no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T027 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor applied herbicide to plants on property line without permission. / Glyphosate damage on plants. Property line dispute. 

Clark

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 11/11/2004

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T028 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thorough inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

King

PI

direct to plants

Unlicensed 5/22/2005

same day

3no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T029 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor made application to her backyard without permission and damaged plants. / Verified.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PI

license

Unlicensed 6/1/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T030 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application records request showed 4 people making commercial applications without license.

Pierce

PI

misuse

NA 4/15/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T031 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Said neighbors sprayed plants on her property. / Some evidence of herbicide damage seen. No source found.

King

PI

misuse

unknown 5/15/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T032 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Said neighbor spayed her plants and damaged them. / Residue found of glyphosate. Neighbor dispute. No source found.

Spokane

PNI

SPI report

SPI 6/26/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T033 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failure to provide SPI report upon request.

Clark

PNI

SPI report

SPI 6/17/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T034 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failure to provide SPI report upon request.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PI

human exposure-drift

unknown 5/26/2005

one day

0no

unknownunknown DOH NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T035 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

DOH referred a call about a possible drift from a Commercial lawn application on two people sitting on a deck at their house. / W

complainants without results. No calls returned.

King

PI

misuse

unknown 5/28/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T036 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Said neighbor used herbicide on her property without permission. / Glyphosate residue detected. Minor plant damage. No source 

Pierce

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 9/13/2004

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T037 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thorough inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

Mason

PI

notification

Private Commercial Ap 6/15/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide Fungicide

thiram polyoxin none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T038 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failed to notify. On pesticide sensitive list. / Verified. Golf course application. Failure to keep records.

Spokane

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 10/13/2004

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T039 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failed to note presence of termites. / Insufficient evidence to determine termites were present at time of inspection.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PNI

license

Unlicensed 8/24/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T040 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Unlicensed SPI inspector. / Verified. Also failure to keep records.

King

PNI

failure to submit SPI report

SPI 8/10/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T041 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failure to submit SPI report on request. / Verified

Clark

PI

records

Commercial 6/6/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide

permethrin none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T042 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Complainant had concerns regarding treatment for carpenter ants. / Failed to keep complete records.

San Juan

PNI

license

Unlicensed 6/8/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T043 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Doing SPI inspections without being licensed. / Verified. Also no insurance and incomplete records.

Cowlitz

PI

misuse

Unlicensed unknown

same day

1no

Herbicide

glyphosate none Verbal Warning 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T044 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

States neighbor using herbicide on property line cedar trees. / Neighbor did use glyphosate. Trees have minor damage. Neighbo

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Thurston

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 2/28/2005

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T045 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thorough inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

Snohomish

PI

license

unlicensed 7/1/2005

same day

1no

Insecticide

pyrethrins none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T046 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

WDO treatment overused insecticide for fleas when doing rodent control. Concern re: license. / Verified. No Commercial Applica

Did not maintain records.

King

PNI

failure to submit SPI records

SPI 8/15/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T047 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failure to submit SPI records on second request. / Verified.

Pierce

PNI

license

unknown 3/5/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T048 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failure to have license and keep application records. / Not verified, lack of evidence.

King

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 5/14/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T049 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failed to notice mold during SPI inspection. / Report stated attic area was excluded from inspection.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Pierce

PI

misuse

Commercial 8/1/2005

10 days

1no

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide

glyphosate simazine diuron none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T050 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor directed commercial applicator to spray his property without permission. / Uncertain property boundary. Differences res

Pierce

PI

misuse

Unlicensed 6/15/2005

one day

1no

Herbicide

phenoxy none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T051 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor sprayed his property without permission. / Symptoms seen on blackberries, no residue detected. No proof - neighbor/n

King

PNI

misuse

NA 9/21/2005

one day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T052 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Company making application of chemicals to Pike Place Market roads and sidewalk areas. / Sanitation company pumping grease 

Cowlitz

PI

drift on organic grapes

Public Operator 7/12/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide Herbicide

triclopyr 2,4-D none Verbal Warning 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T053 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

DOT ROW spray damaged grape vines. / Symptoms seen, residue not detected.

Cowlitz

PI

misuse

Unlicensed 6/15/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

triclopyr 2,4-D none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T054 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor sprayed blackberries without permission. / Blackberries showed symptoms and residue. On easement road, neighbor n

in court.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PI

purchase of RUP w/o license

Dealer 10/2/2003

same day

1no

Insecticide

chlorpyrifos none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T055 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Purchase of RUP without license. / Verified. Dealer sold to unlicensed persons and did not keep distribution records.

Kitsap

PI

misuse

Unlicensed 7/19/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide

copper napthanate none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T056 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Concerned that roof application harming plants, getting into water. / Commercial application to roof made by unlicensed applicato

contact with plants. Water contact not verified.

Grays Harbor

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 10/15/2004

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T057 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thorough inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

Clark

PI

distribution

Unlicensed 10/4/2004

same day

1no

Fungicide

ethoxyquin copper EPA NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T058 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Box of unregistered fruit wrap paper brought to Yakima WSDA office. / Pear wrap paper being distributed in WA without EPA or s

Pierce

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 10/19/2005

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T059 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thorough inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

King

PI

misuse

Unlicensed 10/31/2005

same day

2no

Fungicide

copper napthanate none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T060 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Wood preservative used inside house by unlicensed applicator. / Verified. Product only for outside use. No commercial license.

Mason

PNI

misuse

Private Applicator 6/1/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T061 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Christmas tree growers using DDT and agent orange. / Unfounded allegations, NOC on storage and records.

Mason

PI

license

Unlicensed 11/29/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA EPA NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T062 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

During inspection of Christmas tree farm, found owner had obtained non-registered pesticide from PUD, PUD not licensed as dea

Clark

PI

distribution

Unlicensed 2004/2005

same day

1no

Fungicide

ethoxyquin copper EPA NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T063 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Unregistered fungicide paper being distributed. / Verified. Same case as T058

Snohomish

PNI

license

Unlicensed 4/26/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T064 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Performing Structural pest inspections 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 

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Kitsap

PNI

license

Unlicensed 10/9/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T065 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Performing Structural pest inspections without license. / Verified

Kitsap

PNI

license

Unlicensed 11/26/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T066 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Performing Structural pest inspections without license. / Verified

Western WA

PI

distribution

Unlicensed 11/29/2005

one day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T067 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Commercial company distributing unregistered pesticides by non-licensed dealer outlet. Records, storage and misbranding violati

Duplicate-see T71

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T068 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Duplicated number - same case as T71.

Pierce

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 9/13/2005

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T069 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thorough inspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did 

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Pierce

PNI

failure to provide records

SPI 12/20/2005

same day

1no

N A

NA none Advisory Letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T070 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Failure to provide WDO records.

Western WA

PNI

unlicensed applicator

Unlicensed 12/5/06

one day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T071 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Unlicensed commercial applicator. / Verified, Cannot locate infractor.

Skagit

PNI

faulty SPI and report

SPI 7/6/2005

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# T072 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Faulty SPI and report. / Verified, Failed to note WDOs, unlicensed, no control number on report.

Franklin

PNI

exam fraud

NA 1/11/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y001 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Simplot employee observed two people photographing what he thought was WSDA exam with cell phone. / Persons were photog

exam questions, not real exam.

Yakima

PI

license

Unlicensed 2004/2005

same day

2no

N A

NA none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y002 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Applications by unlicensed person. / Verified, warrants needed to get records, numerous recordkeeping and misuse issues.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Yakima

PI

human, animal exposure -drift

Private Applicator 3/20/2005

same day

4no

Insecticide

Chlorpyrifos oil none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y003 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to orchard drifted to person, cattle, dog and cats. / Person became ill. Dr. thought possible OP poisoning. Residue de

Benton

PI

sale

Dealer 3/23/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

2,4-D none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y004 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Selling 2,4-D in 2.5 gallon containers without checking on license. / Verified. Unaware of recordkeeping requirements.

Franklin

PI

sale

Dealer 3/23/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

2,4-D none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y005 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Selling 2,4-D in 2.5 gallon containers without checking on license. / Verified. Unaware of recordkeeping requirements.

Walla Walla

PI

drift to crop

Private Ap / Public Operator spring 2005

same day

1no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y006 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Complainant said product drifted to his onions from either application to wheat or to ROW. / All samples tested negative. Applicat

were incomplete.

Benton

PI

human exposure - drift

Private Applicator 4/25/2005

same day

3yes

Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide

myclobutanil spinosad Carbaryl DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y007 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

School bus driver said bus with children on board was drifted on from application to orchard. Driver has possible symptoms, childr

washed, DOH did not investigate, no symptoms substantiated. No symptoms for children. NOC because of testimony.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Yakima

PI

drift to property

Commercial 5/13/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

cyhalothrin none NOCs 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y008 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Landscape applicator drifted on motor home, shed and plants. / Verified. Improper supervision, records problem.

Franklin

PI

human exposure - drift

Commercial 5/19/2005

same day

4no

Herbicide Herbicide

atrazine alachlor DOH NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y009 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to corn drifted on 15 people at greenhouse operation. Several felt ill and one went to the hospital. / Verified. Wind blo

Health symptoms short term.

Benton

PI

drift to crop

unknown 5/20/2005

same day

4no

Herbicide

phenoxys none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y010 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift of 2,4-D to vineyard. / Verified. Damage extensive but no source proven.

Franklin

PI

drift to trees

Public Operator 5/28/2005

same day

2no

Herbicides

Miscellaneous none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y011 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Homeowner claimed application to church property damaged trees. / No residue detected from trees. Several applications in are

site made an off-label application. NOC issued for this.

Yakima

PNI

license

Commercial 6/13/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y012 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Unlicensed commercial applicator. / Company sold. Properly licensed and insured.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Walla Walla

PI

direct to crop

Commercial 4/13/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide Herbicide

dicamba MCPA none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y013 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Contaminated product applied to wheat damaged crop. / No residue of glyphosate found in samples. Pennsylvania lab reported l

Unresolved.

Klickitat

PI

human exposure - direct

Unlicensed 3/16/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

glyphosate DOH/Police NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y014 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Person said applicator sprayed her in face when she tried to get her dog away. / No evidence exposure occurred. Medical opinio

injury seen.

Benton

PI

drift to crop

Commercial 6/15/2005

same day

2no

Herbicides

mscl none Advisory letters 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y015 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to potatoes drifted on cherries. / Verified. Could not determine which of two applicators.

Yakima

PI

drift to property

Referred 6/22/2005

same day

2no

Fungicide

sulfur Yakama Nation Referred 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y016 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to hops drifted on adjacent property. / Verified. Case referred to Yakama Nation as hop field is on reservation. Residu

Benton

PI

drift to crop

unknown 5/20/2005

same day

3no

Herbicide

phenoxys none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y017 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Phenoxy symptoms on 500 acres of vineyard. / Verified . No source determined.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Yakima

PI

drift to ornamentals

Public Operator 6/5/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide Herbicide

2.4-D glyphosate DOE NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y018 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

ROW application along ditch damaged ornamentals. / Property line dispute. NOC on off label use.

Franklin

PI

drift to property

Commercial 7/1/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide Insecticide

methamidiphos sulfur none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y019 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Aerial application to potatoes drifted to cars, patio and garden. / Verified by residue. No health complaints or crop damage.

Yakima

PI

misuse

Commercial 6/25/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

imidacloprid none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y020 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Commercial application to control earwigs did not work. / Applicator treated for carpenter ants and rodents. No sign of either on 

earwigs not best chemical. Failed to keep and provide proper records.

Okanogan

PI

human exposure -drift

Unlicensed 6/27/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide

dichlobenil DOH NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y021 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Next door neighbor used chemical over rate and made her and dogs ill. Also drifted on property. / No evidence of exposure to pe

odor). NOC - runoff from application on slope.

Franklin

PI

drift to trees

Commercial Jun-05

same day

2no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NOCs 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y022 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide damage to trees. / Glyphosate symptoms, no source found. NOCs on license and records.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Kittitas

PI

drift to crop

Commercial 7/1/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide Herbicide

2,4-D dicamba Food Safety Advisory letter 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y023 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to Sudan grass drifted on potato fields. / Symptoms, no residue detected. No economic loss.

Klickitat

PI

drift to crop

Unlicensed 7/6/2005

same day

3no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y024 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Herbicide injury to wine grapes. / Verified. Misapplication direct to crop in violation of label.

Yakima

PI

storage/human exposure -odor

Commercial 7/5/2005

same day

1no

unknown

Unknown DOH/DOE NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y025 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Odor from where chemical spray company parking trucks making him ill. / No violations seen.

Benton

PI

misuse

Unlicensed Summer 20

one day

4no

Herbicide

picloram none NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y026 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor used herbicide along fence line and trees dying. / Verified. Homeowner used RUP brought from brother's house. RUP 

licensed.

Walla Walla

PI

drift to garden

Unlicensed 7/14/2005

same day

2no

Herbicide

diquat Sheriff NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y027 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor used herbicide and drifted or sprayed her garden. / Verified. Warrant needed to access property.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Benton

PI

drift to potatoes

unknown 5/18/2005

same day

0no

unknownunknown none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y028 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Drift to potatoes. / Complainant withdrew complaint.

Columbia

PI

human exposure -drift

Commercial 8/3/2005

one day

1no

unknownunknown none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y029 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Felt ill from pesticide application to home across street. / Spoke to applicator and withdrew complaint.

Yakima

PI

misuse

Commercial 8/29/2005

same day

1no

Herbicide

glyphosate none NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y030 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application made by commercial applicator to lawn damaged trees. / Residue found was herbicide used by complainant.

Yakima

PI

drift to property

Private Applicator 8/11/2005

same day

2no

Insecticide

azinphos methyl none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y031 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to apples drift on property, cars. / Verified. Residue found off target. No health complaints.

Yakima

PI

drift to day care

Private Applicator 8/17/2005

same day

2yes

Insecticide

fenpyroximate none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y032 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Application to hops drifted on day care center property. / Verified. Residue found. No health symptoms claimed by complainant.

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved
WSDA 2005 Case Data

Walla Walla

PNI

direct to property

unknown unknown

same day

0no

N A

NA EPA, Sheriff NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y033 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Homeowner said agricultural aircraft had leaking nozzles and flew over home and damaged trees. / No evidence of herbicide inju

drought.

Kittitas

PNI

misuse

Unlicensed 5/27/2005

same day

0no

N A

NA DOE NAI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y034 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Using diesel fuel on fence. / Application not being used as a pesticide, no impact to environment or persons or property. No juris

Yakima

PI

disposal

Private Applicator unknown

same day

4no

MiscellaneousMiscellaneous DOE NOI 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y035 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Company improperly disposing of pesticides by burial. / Verified.

Benton

PI

drift to pasture

Unknown Aug-05

two days

1no

Herbicide

Miscellaneous none NOC 

Other Agencies Final Action 

County

DesignationNature of Case

License Date

Response time

Case# Y036 Severity 

Children Involved?

Chemicals Involved: 

2005

Neighbor sprayed herbicide and drifted to property and damaged pasture. / Residues of several herbicides found. No source det

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

October 23, 2006 NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not Involved

Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program 

Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

Benton 548296, Kennewick 

5/12/2005, 5/12/2005 Air Pesticide Transportation- Vehicle/Truck Unknown Unknown Refe

550653, Kennewick 

9/10/2005, 9/10/2005 Roadway, paved Pesticide 5-7 gallons Transportation Vehicle/Truck Accident- traffic Contaminated roadway/ parking lot Telep

technassis

Chelan 547923, Leavenworth 

5/3/2005, 5/3/2005 

Surface water, fresh Pesticide Construction site 

Human factorimproper procedures 

Unknown 

Teleptechnassis
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

551200, Leavenworth 

10/11/2005 10/14/2005 Other Herbicide Commercial 

Human factorintentional Human 

Referequeinform

551285, Cashmere 

7/27/2005, 7/27/2005 Soil Herbicide Domestic 

Human factorimproper procedures 

Soil Contamination Refe

Clark 547405, Vancouver 

4/12/2005, 4/12/2005 

Soil, Roadway, paved 

Pesticide, 5 containers 

Motor vehiclecar Accident- traffic Soil Contamination 

RefeTeleptechnassis

550697, Vancouver 

9/20/2005, 9/20/2005 Roadway, paved Pesticide, 10 gallons Other 

Human factorimproper procedures 

Contaminated roadway/ parking lot 

Field respotechnassis

Columbia 548469, Dayton 

5/26/2005, 5/31/2005 Air Pesticide Burn, open 

Human factor, intentional 

Air pollution 

Field respoinves

164 Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

549765, Dayton 

8/4/2005, 8/4/2005 Air Pesticide Commercial 

Human factorimproper procedures 

Air pollution Telep

Cowlitz 548347, Ariel 

5/24/2005, 5/24/2005 

Surface water, fresh 

Herbicide, 1 quart Public agency Operator error Water pollution Emai

telep

549540, Kalama 

Unknown, 7/25/2005 

Surface water, fresh Herbicide Public agency 

Human factorintentional Water pollution Emai

Douglas 550801, East Wenatchee 

Unknown, 9/16/2005 Soil Commercial Unknown Soil Contamination No fo

need

Ferry 547963, 5/6/2005, Surface water, Insecticide Human Natural Field 

Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

Curlew 5/6/2005 fresh, Kettle 

River 

factor, misconduct 

resource damage 

respoinvesand r

Grant 549498, Moses Lake 

7/21/2005, 7/21/2005 Air Pesticide Commercial 

Human factorimproper procedures 

Air pollution 

Field respoinves

Grays Harbor 546298, Montesano 

2/12/2005, 2/12/2005 

166 

Soil Herbicide, 40 gallons Farm/agriculture

Human factorimproper procedures 

Soil contamination 

Field respotechnassis

Island 548362, Whidbey Island 

5/25/2005, 5/25/2005 

Surface water, fresh/wetland Domestic 

Human factorintentional 

Natural resource damage 

No foneed
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

Okanogan 546410, Tonasket 

7/23/2004, 2/18/2005 Air Pesticide Farm/agriculture

Human factorimproper procedures 

Air pollution Telep

549100, Conconully 

Unknown, 6/10/2005 Soil Pesticide Unknown Fire Soil contamination TCP Dete

Pacific 549082, Heather 

6/22/2005, 6/29/2005 

Public road, right-of-way 

Herbicide, 5 gallon Farm/agriculture Natural phenomenon Human Telep

technassis

549149, Ilwaco 

7/1/2005, 7/1/2005 

Surface watermarine 

Herbicide, Petroleumgasolinesheen Vessel-other Human factor- misconduct Water pollution Telep

technassis

550476, Unknown, Surface water- Unknown Unknown Potential No fo

Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

Willapa 9/7/2005 fresh pollution/release needPierce 546965, Tacoma 

3/22/2005, 3/22/2005 Building/structure Pesticide Public agency Accident- other Human Telep

547112, Sumner 

3/28/2005, 3/28/2005 

Surface waterfresh Herbicide Farm/agriculture Human factor- intentional Potential pollution/release Refe

Skagit 547833, Mount Vernon 

4/29/2005, 4/29/2005 

Surface waterfresh Pesticide Domestic Natural resource damage Improper procedure Emai

Telep

Snohomish 

168 Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

551148, Arlington 

Unknown, 10/7/2005 Ditch Pesticide Commercial Improper procedure Potential pollution/release

Field respoinvesTCP Dete

Stevens 549960, Hunters 

Human factornegligence 6/13/2005, 6/13/2005 Surface water- fresh Insecticide, manure Commercial Natural resource damage Field respo

inves

Thurston 548989, Olympia 

Surface waterfresh Long Lake 

Herbicide Domestic 6/17/2005, 6/17/2005 Improper procedure Water pollution Emai

Walla Walla 547447, 4/12/2005, Ground water Pesticide Commercial Human Ground water Field 

Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

College Place 

4/12/2005 factorincompetence contamination respo

inves

Whatcom 550003, Bellingham 

Surface water, fresh Unnamed creek 

Herbicide Logging/timber Human factor-other Unknown, 8/15/2005 Water pollution Telep

550006, Bellingham 

Unknown, 8/16/2005 

Surface water, fresh Fazon Lake 

Teleptechnassis

Herbicide Domestic Improper procedure Potential pollution/release

170 Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

550292, Everson 

8/28/2005, 8/28/2005 

Surface waterfresh Herbicide Domestic Human factor-other Water pollution Telep

Whitman 547314, Pullman 

Human factorintentional Bridge Herbicide Transportation- rail 4/7/2005, 4/8/2005 Water pollution Refe

548773, Palouse 

6/16/2005, 6/16/2005 Air Commercial 

Human factor, intentional 

Potential pollution/release

No foneed

Yakima 546113, Grandview 

1/26/2005, 1/26/2005 Air Pesticide Commercial Fire Air pollution Field respo

Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

technassisand Tvoluncomp

547084, Mabton 

Teleptechnassis

Surface waterfresh Pesticide Commercial 

Human factorimproper procedures 

3/7/2005 3/28/2005 Water pollution 

4/25/2005, 4/25/2005 

Surface waterfresh, Irrigation 

Pesticide 30-200 gallons 

547713, Harrah 

Accidenttraffic Commercial Water pollution Telep

172 Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

TeleptechnassisField respoinves

Herbicide Domestic 

Human factorimproper procedures 

548687, Yakima 

6/8/2005, 6/9/2005 

Surface waterfresh Water pollution 

Fire Air pollution 

Field respoinves

548797, Yakima 4/27/2005, 4/27/2005 Air Pesticide Farm/agriculture549886, Zillah 

8/2/2005, 8/2/2005 Roadway, paved Pesticide Commercial Unknown Unknown 

Field respoinves

Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Department of Ecology 

Summary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Actio

174 Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2

A

005 Pesticide Incidents 

nnual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 175

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

050004 01/05/2005 A 48-year-old female went to ER with upper respiratory symptoms caused by 

inhalation of mist from the fogger that she set off and then did not leave the area. 

Patient was discharged with treatment for asthma exacerbation. 

Unknown: Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050005 01/10/2005 A parent was applying topical flea treatment to his dog's back. When he pressed on 

the tube it squirted into his 9-year-old daughter's eye. She had ocular symptoms. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050006 01/13/2005 A 22-year-old female was leaning over to apply boric acid powder under her kitchen 

counters. She inhaled some of the product. She became anxious and then 

experienced increasing respiratory symptoms. She called WPC, said she has 

asthma and used her nebulizer. After two hours the symptoms resolved. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Boric acid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050009 01/16/2005 A 4-year-old was playing with his siblings, ages 2 and 6. He climbed onto the 

kitchen counter, found a fogger and set it off. The children and their father were 

exposed to the mist and had respiratory symptoms. They all went outside. They 

called WPC for advice. Their symptoms cleared. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

4 Possible 

Severity: (4) Low/Mild 

050010 01/17/2005 A 41-year-old female left her home as apartment manager applied an insecticide to 

control silverfish in the kitchen. She returned after seven hours and noticed the 

chemical smell. She became concerned when she touched brown liquid residue on 

her kitchen counter top. She experienced upper respiratory irritation, called WPC, 

took a hot shower, and began to feel better. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene 

dicarboximide, N-; Piperonyl butoxide 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050012 01/21/2005 A 90-year-old female reportedly sprayed an aerosol insecticide for 90 minutes for 

moth control in her basement. She later developed symptoms she feels were 

related. She washed, but her symptoms persisted. She went for medical treatment. 

Unknown: Miller Home 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050013 01/22/2005 An 81-year-old male applied a 0.1% active ingredient insecticide to the inside of his 

home to control insects. The next day he developed a rash over his body. He also 

had just started taking an antibiotic for a sore throat. He went to an emergency 

room for treatment. His itching was controlled quickly but it took about three days 

for the rash to resolve. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050015 01/26/2005 A 34-year-old female reported using four flea foggers in her home and staying out 

of house for three to four hours. She returned and found her guinea pig had died. 

She spent some time in the home, but due to the smell she then spent the night at 

her mother's home. She complained of gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms. 

She went to the hospital ER for evaluation. 

Insecticide: unknown class 

1 Possible 
2

A

176 

005 Pesticide Incidents 

nnual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050016 01/23/2005 A 16 month old male and his brother were playing. He handled a granular herbicide 

and was found with granules around his face and mouth. It was not known if he 

ingested any. He was washed off. Later when he developed a body rash and some 

respiratory problems, he was taken to physician, who gave the mother Mr. Yuk 

stickers and talked about the dangers of household chemicals. The physician 

thought that the rash was viral in origin. 

Herbicide/algicide: Trifluralin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050017 02/01/2005 A 50-year-old male used a hose-end sprayer to apply a moss control product to the 

roof of his two story home. He did not wear required PPE (goggles and gloves). The 

spray came back into his face and eyes. He felt immediate eye irritation and came 

off the roof, his wife washed out his eyes and called WPC. The irritation decreased 

and was resolved by next day. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050018 02/01/2005 A 51-year-old female reported symptoms following an application of Rid Lice 

Shampoo at a treatment center. Patient was wearing rubber gloves while applying 

product on a client’s hair. She sought medical care and was released in stable 

condition. 

Unknown: Piperonyl butoxide, Pyrethrins 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050019 02/01/2005 A 34-year-old male set off (lit) a rodenticide gas product. He breathed in an 

estimated five breaths. He reported several respiratory effects and called WPC. He 

returned an inquiry call and provided more information. He was still experiencing 

effects two to three days later. 

Rodenticide: Sulfur; Sodium Nitrate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050022 02/05/2005 A 6-year-old female was in the grocery store with her mother and pulled a container 

of insect repellent off the shelf. She removed the cap and pressed the dispenser 

button, spraying herself in the face. The child's mother immediately took her to a 

restroom and irrigated her eyes for about 20 minutes. She checked with store 

pharmacist and then called WPC. The symptoms cleared in about 30 minutes. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050023 02/05/2005 An adult couple, ages 39 and 41, poured moth balls into their attic to get rid of 

squirrels. They believe their subsequent symptoms were from the off-gassing of the 

naphthalene. They most of the product, then called WPC for advice. They reported 

the symptoms were diminishing. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Naphthalene 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050025 02/10/2005 A 21-year-old male spilled a concentrated herbicide on his hands several times as 

he was adding the product to his sprinkler system. He washed his hands, but about 

an hour later, he developed a number of dermal signs related to skin sensitization. 

He called WPC, they recommended more decontamination, and application of 

Benedryl. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, 

dimethylamine salt; Triethylamine triclopyr 

1 Possible 
2

A

005 Pesticide Incidents 

nnual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 177

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050027 02/12/2005 An 80-year-old male apartment tenant was exposed when the pest control operator 

was spraying outside his apartment. He walked around a corner while the PCO was 

spraying and was sprayed in the face. He soon developed symptoms and called 

WPC. No other medical care was sought. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050028 02/15/2005 A 41-year-old male agricultural worker went to the ER complaining of neurological 

and gastrointestinal symptoms following exposure to phosphine gas. No PPE worn, 

except rubber gloves. Patient was applying pellets to gopher holes in a field. 

Fumigant: Aluminum phosphide 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050032 02/19/2005 A 36-year-old male homeowner said he was in a hurry, did not use gloves and the 

spray ricocheted onto his hands and wrist. He had dermal symptoms and rinsed 

thoroughly. He indicated that he would use gloves the next time he applied. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050035 02/20/2005 A 37-year-old male health provider applied herbicides in the wind. He said he was 

in a hurry and neither read the label nor used any PPE. The next day he developed 

respiratory and neurological symptoms and sought medical care. He had concerns 

about the ingredients and label was provided to him by mail. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050036 02/18/2005 A 4-year-old boy climbed on a propane tank two days after the house, deck and 

outbuilding were treated for moss. An hour or so later he complained of burning and 

itching on his bare arms. His mother called WPC who recommended washing and 

ice. The child napped and awoke feeling fine. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050037 02/23/2005 A 64-year-old male did not read the label instructions and released an aerosol 

insecticide in his garage to control ants. The container was pointed directly at his 

face and he inhaled and swallowed some of the fog. He took the container outside. 

He developed respiratory symptoms. He called WPC but did not seek medical 

treatment. Within an hour he felt much better. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050038 02/24/2005 A 78-year-old female spilled herbicide on her hands while applying to weeds in her 

lawn around her condo. She immediately washed. Three hours later she had 

swelling and itching. She called WPC, washed again and applied ice, then a cream 

to alleviate the itching. The itching lasted three days. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; 

Mecoprop 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050039 02/19/2005 A 26-year-old mother and her 10 month old daughter were in the bathroom of a 

motel room. The product had been applied after the mother identified an ant 

problem. The mother developed neurological, GI and respiratory problems. The 

mother contacted WPC. The label was not followed (ventilation). 
2

A

178 

005 Pesticide Incidents 

nnual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): limonene 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050040 02/22/2005 A 1-year-old female ingested approximately 1.5 cc of a miticide. The mother 

contacted the poison center and was advised to give child food and fluids. There 

was no harm anticipated from the ingestion. Nevertheless, the next day the infant 

had diarrhea. The child was not taken for medical treatment. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050042 02/28/2005 A 22-year-old female sprayed her cats and her bare feet with an aerosol flea spray. 

She immediately developed an itch. She washed with water only, called WPC, 

washed again, and went to bed. She awoke and the symptoms had almost 

resolved. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Permethrin, mixed 

cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050043 03/01/2005 A 45-year-old female home owner developed ocular symptoms after she splashed 

herbicide in her eye. She did not seek medical treatment. Symptoms dissipated 

within approximately twelve hours. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050045 03/02/2005 A 36-year-old female applied a flea insecticide to her dog, then sniffed the dog’s fur 

and contacted the insecticide with her lips and face. She reported irritation around 

her mouth and immediately called WPC. She washed her face well with soap and 

water. Later the same day, the irritation resolved. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050046 03/02/2005 A 33-year-old female set off three flea bombs in a small apartment, left for two 

hours, returned to ventilate and clean, then slept on the couch for two hours. She 

awoke with respiratory, GI and neurological symptoms. She works in a hospital and 

was monitored by the staff at the hospital. She did not work the next day due to 

symptoms. Educational material was provided. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050047 03/03/2005 A family of three, ages 41, 20 and 17, lived above an office where an application 

was made. They could smell and taste the products and two of them had 

respiratory, gastrointestinal, neurological and ocular symptoms. They had not been 

notified of the application. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Piperonyl butoxide; Linalool 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Methoprene 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050048 03/04/2005 A 52-year-old homeowner reported an ocular exposure to WPC. The patient was 

filling the sprayer when it accidentally splashed into his eyes. He was not wearing 

eye protection. No medical care was sought. 

Herbicide/algicide: Pendimethalin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 
2

A

005 Pesticide Incidents 

nnual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 179

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

050049 03/05/2005 A 32-year-old female used a crack and crevice insecticide to spray for insects. As 

she walked around her home outside, she walked in and out of the spray mist. The 

spraying took place around 10:30 PM. When she awoke the next day she had a 

general rash on her arms, legs, and upper chest. She washed off and called WPC. 

No other medical care was sought. 

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 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050050 02/12/2005 A 40-year-old licensed applicator applied a mixture of iron, fertilizer and an 

insecticide. The pressure line from the pump, split at the spray gun and sprayed 

directly into his right eye. He was not wearing eye protection and didn't thoroughly 

decontaminate his eye. He didn't have an exam until 2/21/2005 when his eye was 

still having irritation and discharge. He was treated and released for work. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Carbaryl (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050051 02/03/2005 A 31-year-old female office worker went into the office restroom immediately after it 

was treated for gnats. There was no placard posted. She developed upper 

respiratory symptoms within two to four minutes. She went to an ER where she was 

evaluated, treated and released. The need to post after pesticide applications and 

PCO timing was discussed with human resources. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin, Methyl-4-oxo-3-(2-

propenyl)-2- cyclopenten-1-yl d-trans-2,2-dimethyl-3-(2-methyl-1-

propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate, 2-; Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene 

dicarboximide, N-; Piperonyl butoxide 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050052 02/02/2005 A landscaper applied an herbicide around an office building. The next day a 24-

year-old female worker came in and worked from 7:30 AM until 11:00 AM. She 

developed respiratory problems believed to be related to the smell of the herbicide 

used around the building. She went in for medical treatment, being asthmatic and 

recently recovering from upper respiratory condition. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dichlobenil (ANSI), Trifluralin (ANSI); Isoxaben (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050054 03/07/2005 A 46-year-old male was helping his neighbor treat his property with moss control. 

He got some chemical in his eye and immediately rinsed. His eye was irritated and 

he sought medical treatment. He was diagnosed with chemical conjunctivitis. 

Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

050055 03/09/2005 3-year-old twin boys went into a storage building left open by their older brother. 

The toddlers played with a shaker container of granular herbicide. One child had a 

possible allergic dermatitis reaction. The mother called WPC for decontamination 

instructions. Two days later the exposure had ceased itching but still showed 

redness. 

Herbicide/algicide: Trifluralin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050056 03/08/2005 At about 5 pm, a 45-year-old female applied a slug bait around her garden area by 

shaking the contents out of the packaging. Unexpectably, the wind blew the 

chemical into her face. She inhaled it and tasted it. She had some redness around 

her mouth, throat irritation and a headache. Around 2 am she called WPC, 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

consulted and went to bed and awoke feeling symptoms had diminished. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Metaldehyde 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050057 03/13/2005 A 63-year-old male licensed pesticide applicator developed ocular symptoms when 

an undetermined amount of pesticide hit his eye. He was not wearing eye 

protection. He was spraying around his home. He sought medical treatment the 

same day and he was discharged with his eye patched. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050058 03/10/2005 A 24-year-old female was picking up four foggers in the basement of her home. She 

believed that her husband had set them off three hours before. She began to have 

respiratory problems and sought medical care later that day. Two foggers would 

have been adequate for the cubic feet (10,000). Education was provided to avoid 

future adverse health effects. 

Insecticide and other: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Methoprene, S1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050059 03/12/2005 A 42-year-old female was applying granular slug bait around her home and garden 

when a wind suddenly whipped the dusty granular material into her face. At the 

same time the wind blew the product onto her 7-year-old daughter who was 

standing around the corner. They had symptoms, showered, and called WPC. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Metaldehyde 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050060 03/12/2005 An adult male applied a moss control product to his lawn with a sprayer. He 

received an exposure to his eye. He rinsed it, had irritation and discomfort, and then 

his wife called WPC. Several calls made to contact this person were unfruitful. 

Unknown: Ferric sulfate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050061 03/11/2005 A 41-year-old female applied a ready-to-use weed control product with a trigger 

pump for about 15 minutes. There was no known contact with the chemical, except 

the chemical odor. She experienced respiratory and neurological symptoms and 

called WPC the following day. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Oxyfluorfen (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050062 03/13/2005 A 27-year-old female developed ocular symptoms when insecticide dropped in her 

eye. She did not seek medical treatment. She was wearing rubber gloves but not 

eye protection. The label does not require the use of PPE. 

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

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050063 03/14/2005 A 55-year-old female's eye was exposed while her friend was applying a 1 ml. 

container of flea insecticide to her cat. The container flew out of her friend's hands 

and squirted material in her eye. She washed her eye and called WPC. Her eye 

was very irritated, so the next day she saw a physician. When called, this individual 

declined any more information and requested no contact. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

180 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050064 03/15/2005 A 59-year-old female medical social worker and her 80-year-old female client 

developed dermal, ocular and respiratory symptoms after exposure to moth balls in 

client’s home. The worker did not seek medical attention. The client did not smell 

the moth balls; however the social worker observed redness in the client's face. The 

client could not remember when the event occurred but did recall placing the moth 

balls between her room and the bathroom. 

Unknown: Naphthalene 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050065 03/16/2005 A 41-year-old female described being sprayed several times by the maintenance 

manger at a mobile home park. She developed dermal and ocular symptoms and 

sought medical care. WSDA investigated. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

050066 03/20/2005 A 76-year-old male was drifted with a pesticide while working with animals in his 

yard. He developed gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms the same day. 

WSDA samples from his yard were positive for residues of the pesticide being 

applied in the area. 

Herbicide and Fungicide (03 & 04): Copper hydroxide 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, 

or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil 

Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate, O,O1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

050067 03/10/2005 A 48-year-old disabled male described being around lice at friends' home and when 

transporting his friend. He said he used five cans of the Rid product over a seven to 

ten day period. He slept on the bedding he sprayed and had neurological, dermal, 

gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms. He did not seek medical care. 

Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050068 03/17/2005 A 30-year-old female splashed her eye with insecticide when trying to open the 1.34 

ml. container. The plastic was bent over as described on the packaging. She 

washed her irritated eye immediately. She called WPC, mixed a sink of saline 

solution and irrigated her eye more. She rested for an hour and began to feel better 

as the irritation resolved. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methoprene, S-; Fipronil 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050069 03/19/2005 A 61-year-old female condo owner hired a PCO to treat her home when she found 

roaches. She stayed out of the home for approximately nine hours that day. She 

returned at 10:00 p.m. and opened windows for ventilation as directed. The next 

day she noticed some odor, turned up the heat, and by 9:30 p.m. that evening, 

reported feeling upper respiratory effects. She showered and the next day the only 

remaining symptom was hoarseness. 

Insect Growth Regulator (IGR): Hydroprene, (7S)- 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI), Orthoboric 

Acid, Fipronil 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050071 03/21/2005 A 31-year-old mother removed her children from the living room when she found 

beetles under her sofa. She sprayed insecticide around the base board and under 

the sofa. She started having upper respiratory irritation. It appeared to have been 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 181
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

an allergic response. She called WPC for consult. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

(ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050073 03/09/2005 A 36-year-old male sprayed for hornets outside of his home for about an hour. He 

reported inhaling spray from the application. He had upper respiratory symptoms 

that took perhaps a month to run its course. He did not see medical attention, but 

after two weeks of coughing, his wife called WPC. 

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 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050074 03/22/2005 A 71-year-old female applied an herbicide from a one gallon hand sprayer. The 

nozzle popped off and a solid stream of solution hit her in the face/mouth/eye. She 

said she panicked, washed noticed tingling around mouth and eye irritation. She 

then called WPC, washed again, rested with herself, and eyes closed, and reported 

feeling a little improvement after approximately three hours. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glufosinate-ammonium 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050075 03/23/2005 A 69-year-old female gardener used a hose end sprayer on her roses. The gasket 

was worn causing the liquid fungicide to spray in her eyes. She did not wear eye 

protection. She immediately tried to rinse her eyes but after a few minutes sought 

medical treatment at a local ER. They treated her and found light perforations on 

her eye. 

Fungicide: Triforine (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050076 03/18/2005 A 31-year-old father, a 31-year-old mother, their 4-year-old daughter and 7 month 

old old son were drifted by a ground spray application while riding in their car on the 

road. The family had gastrointestinal, dermal and respiratory symptoms. The 7 

month old infant was taken to the ER with a fever and respiratory symptoms. He 

was treated again two days later at a clinic for gastrointestinal symptoms. WSDA 

tests were positive for pesticide residues on the car. WSDA determined that the 

orchard application was negligent and contrary to label directions. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-

pyridyl) 

phosphorothioate, O,O-, Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503 

4 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

Severity: Low/Mild 

Severity: Moderate 

Severity: Moderate 

050077 03/23/2005 A 49-year-old male vegetation management supervisor/city employee was taking 

inventory in a chemical storage room and decided to relocate some 2.5 gallon 

containers improperly stored on the top shelf. When he reached up to move a 

container of herbicidal desiccant, the lid was missing and the product spilled into his 

face. He swallowed some of the product. He immediately took a full body shower 

and was taken for medical care. He was hospitalized the next day due to 

progressive respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms. He was discharged after ten 

days. DOH provided resources to the health care providers and L&I conducted an 

inspection. 

Herbicide/algicide: Diquat dibromide 

1 Definite 

182 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: High/Severe 

050078 03/24/2005 A 38-year-old male used a hose end sprayer to apply a moss control product. He 

thought the application container was on tight. However it came loose and fell off, 

and the contents splashed up into his face. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050079 03/24/2005 The exposed person was a 29/yo male gardener/landscaper. He was applying a 

granular moss control product by means of a hand-held rotary dispenser. The wind 

blew some dust and granular material into his face. He inhaled some of the 

material, which caused ocular irritation and respiratory difficulty. His wife called 

WPC. He did not seek medical attention. 

Herbicide and Fungicide (03 & 04): Ferrous sulfate monohydrate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050080 03/25/2005 A 49-year-old male applied a granular insecticide/fertilizer. The wind blew the 

product into his eye. He was not wearing eye protection. He washed his eye for ten 

minutes and went to eye clinic for persisting discomfort. A physician removed some 

granular material from his eye and treated it. 

Herbicide/algicide: Ferrous sulfate monohydrate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050082 02/07/2005 A 58-year-old female employee and licensed applicator wearing more than the label 

required PPE, finished a few hours of applying an herbicide. She had no recall of 

direct or spray contact. Later she noticed that her face and neck were red. She 

showered and the next day went for medical attention. It is thought she had an 

allergic reaction. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050083 03/31/2005 A 4-year-old female was found with a bottle missing two to three ounces of flea and 

tick shampoo. She had shampoo on her breath, around her mouth and in her left 

eye. Her left eye was twitching. She was immediately bathed. WPC was called from 

the hospital ER. The doctor noticed some irritation but the majority of exam was 

unremarkable. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; Noctylbicycloheptene dicarboximide 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050085 03/04/2005 A 61-year-old male applicator had ocular and neurological symptoms after applying 

with an air blast sprayer. He could feel the spray on his neck and face but did not 

feel it in his eyes. He wore a hooded sweatshirt to absorb the pesticides hitting his 

plastic vest. He wore safety glasses but not goggles. He sought medical care the 

next day. He was enrolled in the cholinesterase monitoring program and ten days 

later his RBC cholinesterase test result showed depression of more than 20% of 

baseline. A month later, both the RBC and serum ChE were still depressed. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, 

or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

Insecticide and other: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate, O,O1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050087 04/03/2005 A relative called WPC reporting that a 2.5-year-old male got a drop of flea control 

product in his eye. The child developed eye irritation and the eye was irrigated. 

DOH called the child's parents for follow-up and they declined to return the calls. 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 183
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

(ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050092 03/24/2005 A 37-year-old male maintenance worker was putting on a backpack sprayer when 

the pesticide in the tank spilled out and down his back. He developed dermal 

discomfort and irritation believed to be related to the contact. He sought medical 

care and the doctor gave diagnosis of chemical dermatitis. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050097 04/14/2005 A 54-year-old female (home owner) developed neurological, gastrointestinal and 

respiratory symptoms. For two hours she was close to an application of herbicide to 

her lawn at her home. She later worked on the grass and she had dermal contact 

(with the grass with her hands and knees). She sought medical treatment five days 

later. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dithiopyr, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; Triethylamine triclopyr; 

MCPA, dimethylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050099 04/17/2005 A 21-year-old male applicator developed a second degree burn, other dermal 

symptoms and gastrointestinal symptoms after spraying a corrosive pesticide. He 

was wearing full PPE. However, he said there were windy conditions. He was 

spraying with a hand-gun and felt the spray hit his mask and roll to his chin. He 

started having burning sensation and itching. He sought medical treatment the next 

day. He did not want to refer the incident to an enforcement agency. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Calcium polysulfide 

1 Definite 

Severity Severity: Moderate 

050101 04/19/2005 A 31-year-old male applicator had first degree burns after opening a 250 gallon 

container under pressure. The product hit both his forearms. At first he had no 

burning sensation, but after washing, his arms began to burn and itch. He sought 

medical care that day. He was wearing full PPE, however, his gloves were not 

taped to the sleeves of his rain gear. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Calcium polysulfide 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050102 04/09/2005 A 59-year-old male landscaper was cleaning and working around a burn pit when a 

swarm of mosquitoes came to him. He sprayed himself and the mosquitoes and 

accidentally got some spray in his right eye. After two days, his right eye was 

swollen shut, and he sought medical attention. Three days later, he had almost 

completely recovered. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity Severity: Moderate 

050103 04/11/2005 A 24-year-old male spray applicator had gastrointestinal and neurological 

symptoms after spraying sulfur based fungicide with an air blast sprayer. He said 

that it was windy, he smelled the tank mix, and felt the pesticide droplets on his rain 

gear. He was wearing full PPE and sought medical care the day after the incident. 

Unknown: Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic 

hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil, Calcium polysulfide 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050104 04/23/2005 A 49-year-old male mixed a concentrate and made a ground spray application to 

weeds near his home. He did not use PPE and experienced neurological, ocular 

184 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

and gastrointestinal symptoms. He sought medical care and said that in the future 

he would wear gloves and use respiratory protection as recommended. 

Herbicide: unknown chlorphenoxy 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050105 04/21/2005 A 19-year-old male was helping his family prepare their garden area by applying 

herbicide to control weeds around the garden plot. The wind rose a few times, and 

he recalled he had eye contact. About two hours later he noticed eye irritation and 

burning. He went to the local ER for an evaluation. The next day he was fine. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050106 04/28/2005 A 25-year-old male helped his grandmother clean out her garage. During the 

process he got his hand into a chemical. Very quickly it started to burn, so he 

washed his hands under running water and in doing so, transferred the chemical to 

the other hand. Both hands were burning; he called WPC and went to the ER. 

Fungicide: Calcium polysulfide 

1 Definite 

Severity Severity: Moderate 

050107 04/08/2005 A 28-year-old female licensed city worker applied moss control to a fabric covering 

of a city historical structure. The chemical ran off the fabric into the gutter and over 

flowed onto her face. The next morning her face was red, irritated and broke out 

with a rash. A few days later she sought medical attention. It took about one week 

to clear up. 

Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050109 04/29/2005 A 46-year-old male laborer was applying a granular moss control product to roofs 

on reservation housing. He wore latex gloves (only PPE). His eyes began to burn 

after he rubbed them. He may have had granules on his hands. He immediately 

washed his eyes and went to a clinic. His eyes were clear shortly after. 

Herbicide: unknown moss killer 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050110 04/29/2005 A 27-year-old female applied an aerosol ant insecticide to control spiders by 

spraying the nest. Shortly afterward, she felt ill, and went for medical attention at an 

urgent care clinic. The clinic did not "see" any indication of illness but noted upper 

respiratory irritation. She stated the spray actually bounced off a glass door and 

came into her face. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; 

Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050111 05/04/2005 A 30-year-old male who loads seed potatoes into the potato planter developed 

neurological symptoms. He reported that he had lifted ten containers of aldicarb 

and one was open. He smelled the odor. He also had other medical problems. He 

declined to provide the name of his employer and did not want the case to be 

referred. His health care provider was not certain about the cause of his problems. 

Unknown: Aldicarb (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050112 05/01/2005 A 65-year-old female used a hand/pump sprayer to treat moss in her lawn. The 

sprayer was leaking, her hands were wet with chemical and she inadvertently 

touched her face, hand and neck. Later in the day she noticed sensitivity, and the 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 185
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

next day the skin areas were red, burned and eventually peeled. About four days 

later she sought medical treatment. 

Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050113 05/07/2005 A 25-year-old female homeowner used a commercial product in her home to control 

ants. The chemical splashed into her face while she was spraying in the bathroom. 

She later developed eye irritation and asked to be taken to the ER. She did not 

have eye protection and was wearing contacts. Her eye was irrigated and she was 

released. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050115 04/23/2005 A 46-year-old male licensed applicator was wearing full PPE except for protection 

to his neck. He had dermal symptoms in the exposed area within six hours after 

spraying. He sought medical care five days later. 

Disinfectant/broad spectrum for water sanitation: Mancozeb 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenazate, Mineral oil - includes 

paraffin oil from 063503 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050116 04/23/2005 A 40-year-old male farmworker is seen in a worker care clinic complaining of pruritic 

rash. The patient had been spraying with a mixture of products wearing the required 

PPE. He feels some of the spray penetrated the openings onto his neck. Patient 

received treatment for dermatitis due to chemical exposure. 

Disinfectant/broad spectrum for water sanitation: Mancozeb 

Herbicide/algicide: Ethephon (ANSI) 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Potassium 1- 

naphthaleneacetate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050117 04/27/2005 A 31-year-old male apple applicator developed respiratory symptoms after he 

sprayed a herbicide mixture for three days. He sought medical treatment the same 

day. He only smelled the pesticide. He was wearing rubber gloves and a dust mask. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-striazine, 2- 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050118 05/11/2005 A 58-year-old female homeowner was sitting on her porch when she observed a 

truck spraying weeds. She could smell the products and then had GI, respiratory, 

ocular and dermal symptoms. She sought medical care that day. WSDA took 

samples one week after the application was made. They were negative. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dicamba, diglycoamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050119 05/13/2005 A 33-year-old male applicator went to a clinic complaining of neurological and 

gastrointestinal symptoms. These were possibly from an OP exposure while 

applying. The initial AChE lab results were within normal limits. He reported that he 

was using a loose fitting mask while spraying a tank mix. He was also directly 

sprayed in the face by another tractor driver moving up the opposite row. 

Fungicide: Trifloxystrobin 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

1 Possible 

186 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity Severity: Moderate 

050121 05/14/2005 A 46-year-old male farmer became ill following an application of Alachlor 4 EC 

herbicide. Patient was exposed at the end of the application when he took his 

gloves off to rinse the spray container. Some of the spray made contact with his 

hands. Patient sought medical care and received treatment for chemical burns. 

Herbicide/algicide: Alachlor (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050122 04/09/2005 A 30-year-old male applicator developed dermal symptoms after spraying limesulfur. He said he felt the spray in open areas of his face/neck where the PPE did 

not cover, especially when he turned his head to make turns at end of the rows. 

Employer provided MSDS to his doctor. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

Unknown: Sulfur 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050123 04/25/2005 A 54-year-old male private agricultural applicator reported a possible occupational 

exposure. He applied a mix of several chemicals wearing full PPE. After he went 

home he developed systemic symptoms. 

Fungicide: Triadimefon 

Herbicide/algicide: Ethephon (ANSI) 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methoxyfenozide 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Potassium 1- naphthaleneacetate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050124 05/16/2005 An 8-year-old female inhaled vapors from chlorine tablets used for the swimming 

pool. She had GI and respiratory symptoms and was taken by ambulance for 

medical care. DOH staff were unable to contact exposed child's parents. 

Unknown: Chlorine 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050125 05/17/2005 Two girls and two boys ages four, five, six and eight had symptoms after playing on 

grass that had been sprayed with an herbicide about four hours earlier. The two 

older kids only had redness of the skin in areas exposed to the grass. The younger 

ones had ocular and neurological symptoms. They were not taken for medical care 

(parents were EMTs) and the symptoms dissipated within twelve hours. One 

symptom of eye dilation was suspicious due to lack of toxicological evidence for 

exposure to the formulation. 

Herbicide: unknown moss killer 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

2 Insufficient Information 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050129 05/19/2005 Fifteen female and male employees, ages 20 - 72 were drifted by an herbicide while 

working in and around greenhouses on the campus of a private school. Their 

supervisor reported that it was quite windy, the drift came from a ground application 

to an adjacent corn field, and one employee was pregnant. The spray drifted into 

the greenhouses. The employees could smell the chemicals: 12 had symptoms, 

one was taken to the hospital for care, three were asymptomatic. WSDA samples 

from the area and one worker's clothes were positive. 

Herbicide/algicide: Alachlor (ANSI), Atrazine (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 187
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: Moderate 

10 Probable 

Severity: (10) Low/Mild 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050131 05/23/2005 A 55-year-old female office worker was walking in the office hallway when a door 

opened to the outdoors. A smell of a recent herbicide application came into the 

building and she breathed in the chemical smell. She reported respiratory irritation 

within five to ten seconds. Her co-worker called the EMS and she was given oxygen 

and later went to a walk in clinic. 

Herbicide/algicide: Bromacil (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050132 05/17/2005 A 35-year-old male applicator spraying cherries developed respiratory, 

gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms. He was wearing an air pressure helmet 

that was in disrepair. He had to open his visor while spraying and was exposed via 

inhalation and dermal contact. He sought medical treatment the same day. 

Fungicide: Pyraclostrobin 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Endosulfan (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

050133 05/25/2005 A 61-year-old female was working at a retail store as a cashier and a canister of the 

product broke open. It went into her face and she could taste it. She had 

neurological, gastrointestinal, ocular and respiratory symptoms and sought medical 

care. She missed five days of work. Educational material was provided. 

Insecticide and other: Metaldehyde; Carbaryl (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity Severity: Moderate 

050134 05/25/2005 A 67-year-old male experienced eye irritation two hours after spraying his home 

orchard with a fungicide. Symptoms worsened and he sought medical care. He was 

diagnosed with chemical abrasion to the eye. 

Fungicide: Chlorothalonil (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050135 05/24/2005 A 32-year-old male applicator had gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms after 

exposure to a nicotinoid pesticide. He was wearing more than the required PPE, 

however, his was face was sprayed with an air blaster. He sought medical 

treatment two days later. His employer provided a list of pesticides that he was 

spraying. 

Fungicide: Quinoxyfen 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

050136 05/27/2005 A 34-year-old female agriculture worker had symptoms after thinning in a vineyard. 

She worked in the same block three days before and saw that the area was 

infested with insects. When she returned to work there, many insects were dead on 

the ground. After working there she had numbness in her face and then some 

respiratory symptoms. She had sought medical care the day before due to 

reactions to trees, grapes, and weeds. The spray records showed that an 

application had been made 18 hours before. After the exposure to residues she 

again sought medical care and her symptoms correlated to an exposure with these 

health effects. 

Fungicide: Triflumizole 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI) 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Probable 

188 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: Moderate 

050137 05/25/2005 Two female agricultural workers ages 22 and 28 had ocular symptoms after 

thinning apples in an orchard sprayed 20 days before. The half life of the product 

ranges from 35 to 87 days and the REI for the product is 24 hours. Their symptoms 

correlated closely with the pattern of exposure. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050139 05/27/2005 A 44-year-old mother and her kids, boy (11) and girl (9) were drifted from a 

neighbor's burning pesticide containers. The mother sought medical care for 

respiratory and neurological symptoms. She obtained literature on the products 

from the pesticide company. She was advised of her right to complain to WSDA 

and/or to register as pesticide sensitive. She declined both but did accept our toll 

free phone number and the URL for the DOH Pesticide Program web page. 

Unknown: Dimethoate (ANSI), Quizalofop-ethyl 

3 Possible 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

050142 05/27/2005 A 32-year-old male farmworker was wearing a respirator while mixing the product. 

He said that he was not given the usual double filter. The pesticide 

organophosphate pesticide was in a powder form and he could smell and taste it. 

He had been applying for five years. He had GI, neurological and respiratory 

symptoms and missed four days work. 

Unknown: Azinphos-Methyl 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

050143 05/11/2005 A 19-year-old male roofer received spray in his face when a coworker sprayed a 

wasp nest that was nearby. He sought medical care for eye and respiratory 

symptoms. His symptoms resolved rapidly. 

Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI), Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050145 04/18/2005 A 46-year-old female nursery worker was in an area treated for aphids the day 

before. The REI was observed. She recalls touching her mouth and face with her 

gloved hands. Later, areas of her face showed sensitivity and became swollen. She 

sought medical attention two days after the exposure. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Fenpropathrin (ANSI), Acephate 

(ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050147 05/07/2005 A 30-year-old male applicator presents to the clinic complaining of dermal 

symptoms. He had been spraying for ten days, wearing full PPE. He says his PPE 

was in good condition and did not think his symptoms were from spraying. 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Potassium 1- naphthaleneacetate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050150 05/29/2005 A 26-year-old male was in his car and moved the seat back. A can of wasp and 

hornet spray was under the seat and was punctured. He felt the spray on his face, 

neck, and arms and breathed the mist. Two days later while driving the car he 

started developing gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms. He did not seek 

medical treatment. He called WPC while at work. 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 189
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Insecticide: unspecified 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050151 06/01/2005 A 76-year-old female complained of eye irritation and mild dizziness after herbicide 

spilled in her car on the way home from store. The cap was not tightened properly 

and there was no foil seal. The Case was referred to WSDA and random checks 

were made of product for loose lids; note found. She did not seek health care. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Oxyfluorfen (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050152 06/02/2005 A 40-year-old male school bus driver was on his route and while passing a facility 

he smelled a pesticide odor from an application that had been made. The only open 

window of the bus was next to him. He had neurological and respiratory symptoms 

but did not seek medical care. WSDA samples inside the bus windows and of his 

shirt were negative. He then observed an air blast application being made near a 

bus stop. None of the students present at the stop had symptoms. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, Glyphosate, 

isopropylamine salt, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050153 06/06/2005 A 34-year-old female was walking past her neighbor's house when she was 

sprayed by an application. She is immunosuppressed by medications for a chronic 

condition. She developed facial, dermal symptoms. She was wearing glasses and 

did not inhale the tank mix. 911 was called and she sought medical care the next 

day. 

Fungicide: Thiophanate-methyl (ANSI) 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

(ANSI) 

Insecticide and other: Hexythiazox 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050154 06/01/2005 Two male farm workers ages 19 and 22 developed dermal symptoms after entering 

an orchard that was sprayed with an insecticide. They were removing tree leaves 

from cherry trees. Their dermal symptoms developed after having contact with the 

leaves. One of them complained of other symptoms and he sought medical 

treatment. His employer indicated they were working in the orchard one day after 

the application to the trees. 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

2 Probable 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050155 06/01/2005 A 33-year-old female plant pathologist in her second trimester of pregnancy was 

drifted while doing a green house inspection of a commercial nursery. Mild eye and 

respiratory irritation resolved same day. DOH provided toxicological information 

regarding reproductive hazard of the pesticide. WSDA investigated. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyridaben (proposed) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050156 06/03/2005 A 52-year-old male sprayed an aerosol insecticide into his car to control some flies. 

He left the car closed until 1 pm the next day. He drove the car into town and 

noticed difficulty breathing within an hour. He eventually sought medical help by 

going to an ER. After examination, he was admitted for three to four days. This 

person has some medical issues that make him more vulnerable. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Allethrin, d-; Phenothrin, D1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

190 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

050160 05/31/2005 A 38-year-old male sprayed the product all day around his home without face or 

eye protection. It was windy. The following day he had multi systemic symptoms. 

He sought medical care four days later. Educational information focusing on 

prevention was provided. 

Herbicide/algicide: Butoxyethyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Butoxyethyl triclopyr 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050162 06/10/2005 A 29-year-old female applied bait around her landscaping to control slugs. While 

applying the granular material some of the dust got into her mouth. She 

immediately rinsed her mouth. She felt some numbness, became concerned and 

sought medical attention the next day. It was the health care provider's impression 

that anxiety resulted from the exposure. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Metaldehyde 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050164 06/12/2005 A 49-year-old male sprayed himself in the face with the product. He had ocular 

symptoms and washed out his eyes. He sought medical care that day and was 

treated for a corneal abrasion. Multiple efforts were made to contact the case but he 

could not be located. 

Insecticide: unknown Raid product 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050165 06/10/2005 A 76-year-old female was applying slug bait around her lawn and garden when the 

wind blew dust into her face and mouth. She rinsed her mouth and washed her face 

immediately. Nevertheless, she developed problems related to mouth irritation. She 

did not seek medical care. The acute problems were resolved fairly quickly. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): 

Metaldehyde 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050167 06/12/2005 A 10-year-old boy was at his friend’s home playing video games. His friend sprayed 

an aerosol insect repellent and a deodorant in the game room. The 10-year-old boy 

developed health effects, went home, showered, and changed clothes. The next 

day his mother took him to a clinic for an exam. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N-; Noctylbicycloheptene 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050168 06/14/2005 A 2-year-old boy ate roach killer insecticide powder from a storage area under a 

kitchen sink. The area was reportedly locked and child proofed. The child vomited 

and walked into the living room to show his mother. She washed him and 

immediately took him to the medical center. He was given activated charcoal and 

discharged. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Boric acid 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050169 06/15/2005 An 81-year-old female applied to rugs & furniture, and shortly afterwards sat on the 

furniture. Within three hours she developed respiratory symptoms and sought 

medical care the next day. She was ill for two days. Educational material was 

discussed and mailed to her. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Allethrin, d-; Phenothrin, D1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 191
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

050174 05/12/2005 A 52-year-old male farm worker had an ocular exposure as he helped in the 

mixing/loading of a sprayer. He was not wearing the required PPE when a drop of 

the chemical mixture splashed up and in his left eye. He sought medical treatment 

14 days later when symptoms did not resolve. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050176 06/20/2005 A 66-year-old male reported he got a glyphosate mixture on his hands while 

spraying around his home. He did not wear gloves and later in the day he reported 

dermal symptoms on his hands. He sought medical treatment two days later for 

increasing dermal symptoms. 

Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050177 06/27/2005 A 16-year-old male lit a gopher bomb, placed it down a tunnel and watched to see 

what happened. His mother saw him around the smoke and called WPC with 

questions and concerns. The teen had some brief coughing with upper respiratory 

symptoms, but it cleared quickly. The boy did not see a physician. 

Rodenticide: Sulfur; Sodium Nitrate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050178 06/28/2005 Two farmworkers, a 25-year-old female and a 27-year-old male, were drifted while 

thinning apples. An unlicensed applicator using an air blaster was applying in an 

adjoining field. WSDA tests of the employee's clothing were positive for pesticides. 

They developed GI and neurological symptoms and were seen for medical care that 

day. They were enrolled in cholinesterase monitoring and the results were not 

significant. The case was referred to WSDA for evaluation of compliance to 

pesticide regulation. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

2 Probable 

Severity: (2) Moderate 

050179 06/19/2005 A 45-year-old male homeowner had malaise for a couple of days after spraying a 

mixture of herbicides. He was wearing more than the required PPE. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, 

dimethylamine salt, Metsulfuron-methyl 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050180 06/23/2005 Two males ages 26 and 29 were about 30 feet from a pesticide application and felt 

the spray on the right side of their faces and on their right arms. One had dermal 

symptoms and the other also had ocular, neurological and gastrointestinal 

symptoms. They provided a piece of clothing to WSDA for testing. They then 

showered and did not seek medical care. The clothing samples were negative for 

pesticides. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Thiamethoxam, Petroleum 

distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic 

hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil, Bifenazate 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050181 07/05/2005 A 64-year-old female apartment tenant developed symptoms after she accidentally 

sprayed her eye with an insecticide. She washed her eye after the exposure. 

However, it still burned and itched. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

(ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

192 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050182 06/28/2005 A 56-year-old female placed a new flea collar on her cat. At the end of the day the 

cat could barely stand up and there was a strong odor in house. The cat's owner 

had gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms that night and later sought medical 

care. EPA was notified and educational material provided to patient. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methoprene, S-; 

Tetrachlorvinphos 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050192 07/04/2005 A 41-year-old female had eye and respiratory symptoms after herbicide spraying 

herself in the face when the bottle broke. She flushed eyes immediately at home 

and then again at the ER. Symptoms resolved rapidly with treatment. She was not 

wearing required PPE. She was educated about following the labels and given 

resources for alternative methods to handle weeds. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dimethylamine 2-

(2-methyl-4- chlorophenoxy) propionate 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050193 07/05/2005 A 49-year-old male Department of Transportation employee had neurological 

respiratory, and gastrointestinal symptoms after inhaling vapors from a road side 

herbicide application. He did not feel the pesticide but he said that he inhaled the 

vapors. He was the driver for the crew and he parked downwind from the 

application. He sought medical care the same day. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, 

dimethylamine salt, Metsulfuron-methyl, Picloram, potassium salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050194 07/04/2005 A 55-year-old female used a hose-end sprayer to apply an insecticide/fungicide 

product to fruit trees on her head while spraying. Later that evening she had 

swollen areas on her neck and the next day areas of pain and irritation on her 

scalp. She sought medical attention for the burning skin surface. 

Multiple (product is classified as multiple classes ...): Pyrethrins; Rotenone; Cube 

Resins other than rotenone; Xylene range aromatic solvent; Copper oleate; 

Cottonseed oil; EDC; Ethylene glycol 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050195 06/01/2005 A 65-year-old male was thinning apples five days post application. He developed 

ocular, dermal and gastrointestinal symptoms and sought medical care. He 

returned to work after one week. 

Fungicide: Triflumizole 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Acetamiprid, Petroleum distillate, 

oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, 

paraffinic oil 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050197 06/19/2005 A 40-year-old male cemetery worker who normally does not apply pesticides 

developed dermal symptoms on the second day of spraying around headstones. He 

is unlicensed. He was not wearing the required PPE. He sought medical treatment 

after spraying the second day when he became aware of his symptoms. 

Herbicide/algicide: Oryzalin (ANSI), Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050199 04/01/2005 A 32-year-old male developed dermal and respiratory symptoms while loading 

fungicides into a potato planter. He sought medical attention four days after onset of 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 193
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

symptoms. While loading the pesticide he felt the pesticide dust on his clothes and 

could taste and smell the formulation. He indicated not wearing any PPE. He did 

not want the case referred. 

Fungicide: Mancozeb; Thiophanate-methyl (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

050200 06/29/2005 A 40-year-old female employee had a history of asthma and was employed at a car 

dealership. Late one afternoon a PCO applied multiple products inside the building. 

She then had respiratory, ocular, and gastrointestinal symptoms when she came 

into work. Also at that time a fellow employee sprayed a ready to use product in her 

vicinity. She went to the ER where she was treated and saw her primary provider 

two days later. In the following three months she continued to have symptoms and 

was referred to an allergist and an occupational health specialist. She did not work 

for several months after the exposure and continued under evaluation when the 

case was closed. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin,, Orthoboric Acid 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

050201 06/09/2005 A 21-year-old male maintenance worker was assigned the task of applying 

herbicide to unwanted vegetation around his employers business. He accidentally 

spilled the liquid down the front of his pants, soaking his leg. He washed his leg and 

attempted to wash the chemical from his long legged pants. Later he noticed 

irritation and went to a clinic for medical attention. 

Herbicide/algicide: Prometon (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050202 07/11/2005 An 81-year-old male developed ocular symptoms after he sprayed himself with a 

hand-held spray pump. He was fixing the nozzle on the pump when it splashed his 

face, eyes and mouth. He washed ten minutes later and then went to a clinic. The 

herbicide was a concentrate and his symptoms correlate to his exposure. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050204 07/12/2005 A 74-year-old male applied an insecticide spray to his roses. The next day, he was 

working around his roses, picking up flower parts, without any PPE. He recalls 

wiping his face with his hands to remove perspiration. He did not bathe that 

evening. The next day he noticed considerable sensiitivity and itching around his 

face that prompted him to seek medical care. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Resmethrin (ANSI); Triforine (ANSI); Acephate 

(ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050205 07/13/2005 A local school district hired a professional application company to maintain the 

soccer field by spraying for broadleaf weeds. Two females aged 46 and 62 who 

were adjacent property owners reported feeling ill after the application. WSDA took 

samples around their property, but no detectable levels of the pesticide were found. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; Mecoprop-P; 2,4-

dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; Sulfentrazone 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050206 07/13/2005 A 38-year-old male, unlicensed but supervised, applicator developed symptoms 

characteristic of the fumigant he was applying to a wheat storage silo. He smelled a 

garlic odor during the application. He wore rubber gloves and a respirator filter 

recommended for the application. He did not seek medical care. 

Fumigant: Aluminum phosphide 

194 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050207 07/14/2005 A 28-year-old male worker was using a 2.5 gal pressurized tank to apply a moss 

control chemical to the roof of a client's home. The nozzle became restricted; he 

looked at the nozzle and attempted to check to clear any blockage. The nozzle 

came off under pressure and hit him in the right eye. He immediately washed out 

the eye. His supervisor suggested he seek medical care, which he did. He wore 

some PPE, however safety glasses didn't protect him. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc chloride 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050208 07/13/2005 A 31-year-old female was exposed to foggers and had respiratory and neurological 

symptoms. Thee days later her spouse said she would seek medical care if her 

symptoms persisted. Multiple efforts were made to contact her and all were 

unsuccessful. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050209 07/15/2005 A 21-year-old male had ocular symptoms after a hose filled with herbicide came 

loose, spraying his face, forehead and eyes. He washed his face and eyes for ten 

or more minutes. His foreman told him to go to the clinic even if he had no 

symptoms. The only PPE used was a half face respirator. The label did not require 

a respirator, face shield or goggles. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Glyphosate, monoammonium 

salt 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050210 06/25/2005 A 39-year-old male applicator was perspiring while placing fumigant tablets in the 

ground and began to itch. He sought medical care three days later for continuing 

dermal symptoms. He told DOH staff that he may have had contact with dust from 

the product bottle/container. 

Fumigant: Aluminum phosphide 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050212 06/23/2005 A 14-year-old male cherry picker had respiratory and ocular symptoms while 

picking cherries. He had been having problems with sneezing and eye irritation and 

sought medical care two days after his symptoms reoccurred. His employer said the 

orchard was sprayed five and seven days before he entered the field. After 

reviewing the ingredients in the active formulation, it was found that the half-lives of 

the products are longer than the REI of the same. 

Fungicide: Quinoxyfen 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050214 07/16/2005 A 47-year-old male unlicensed applicator was applying to the lawn by a gas station. 

The wind blew the product into his face. He had respiratory and gastrointestinal 

symptoms that became worse. He taken to the ER by local EMS. A myocardial 

infarction was ruled out. 

Herbicide: chlorophenoxy 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050215 06/13/2005 Two females, ages 31 and 48, had ocular and respiratory symptoms after picking 

cherries in an orchard. One of the workers sought medical care. The spray records 

showed an application conducted three and nine days before they entered the field. 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 195
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Although the REI was observed they reported symptoms that could be related to 

the products. The half-lives of the active ingredients for both products were longer 

than the REI. 

Fungicide: Propiconazole 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050216 07/19/2005 A 34-year-old mother used an insect repellent wipe on her child. She then did not 

wash her hands and removed her contacts. Within an hour her eyes were irritated 

and she called WPC. She went to the ER and her eyes were irrigated and 

examined for damage. She was released feeling much better. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050217 07/17/2005 An 11-year-old female student at a music camp used 'bug spray' before a 

performance. Some of the spray went in her eyes. She performed for 20 minutes 

before washing her eyes. After four days her mother took her for medical 

evaluation. Symptoms resolved in one week. 

Insecticide: unknown bug spray or repellent 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050221 06/28/2005 A 24-year-old male applying fertilizers developed neurological, gastrointestinal and 

respiratory symptoms after smelling another pesticide application close by. He 

reported that he did not feel the spray. He was applying three to four rows from the 

pesticide application. He sought medical care early the next day. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050226 05/03/2005 Two retired females, ages 53 and 63 developed ocular, respiratory and neurological 

symptoms after they smelled a pesticide application conducted in front of the 

property. They did not seek medical treatment. Swab and foliage samples collected 

by WSDA inside the property were positive. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Novaluron 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

2 Probable 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

050229 07/25/2005 A 40-year-old disabled male was exposed to a Raid insecticide. He went for 

medical care after having dermal, gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms. 

Multiple unsuccessful efforts were made to contact him. He gave the medical staff a 

history of using a mask during the application. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; 

Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050231 07/12/2005 A 43-year-old female had neurological and respiratory symptoms after an aerial 

applicator drifted her property with a tank mix of fungicides. She sought medical 

care eight days later. The WSDA samples of a tree on the property were positive for 

one of the fungicides and samples made of the windows were negative. This may 

have been due to 14 days interim between the application and the sampling. WSDA 

determined that the application was not in accordance with label directions for 

agricultural use requirements. 

Fungicide: Mancozeb 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): 

196 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

050232 06/20/2005 A 50-year-old homeowner had neurological symptoms after spraying an 

organophosphate insecticide onto the apple tree in his yard. He had had symptoms 

previously when he used the product. The health care provider did not find objective 

signs of exposure. This included testing for depressed cholinesterase. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Methoxychlor; Malathion (ANSI); Carbaryl 

(ANSI); Captan 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050233 07/27/2005 A 40-year-old old male applicator had neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms 

while spraying a tank mix. One of the products was an organophosphate. He was 

using a ground sprayer and felt the spray on his rubber suit and could see the mist 

through his full face respirator. He said his supervisor told him to change the filter 

every three days. He changed the filter whenever he smelled the pesticides. His 

supervisor took him to the clinic. One day later his cholinesterase levels did not 

show significant depression. DOH referred the case to L & I for evaluation. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Phosmet, Bacillus thuringiensis 

subsp. kurstaki 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050234 07/27/2005 A 35-year-old female alfalfa harvester developed neurological and gastrointestinal 

symptoms after water splashed on her from a hose used previously to mix 

herbicides. She was using the hose to wash off a swather. She sought medical care 

that evening. 

Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050237 06/28/2005 A 41-year-old male commercial applicator worked for a national lawn maintenance 

company. While applying a fertilizer/herbicde mix to a customers lawn, the pressure 

hose detached from the spray gun, causing the mix to go into his eye and face. He 

reported some irritation for a couple of days, and 12 days later sought medical care. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; Dimethylamine 2-(2-methyl-4- 

chlorophenoxy)propionate; MCPA, dimethylamine salt; Mecoprop-P 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050239 08/03/2005 A 47-year-old male mechanic was drifted upon by an aerial application while 

fixing/welding a water pump in a potato circle. The following day he sought medical 

care. Another worker avoided exposure by staying inside of the truck. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Spiromesifen 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050240 07/21/2005 A 36-year-old licensed applicator had neurological, dermal, and gastrointestinal 

symptoms after a hose broke and splashed onto his face. The tank mix contained 

two herbicides. He immediately washed. He sought medical care sixteen days later. 

DOH discussed the importance of wearing proper PPE and suggested better 

methods of decontamination of the leather boots and gloves. 

Herbicide/algicide: Picloram, potassium salt, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

050242 08/05/2005 The mother of a 3-year-old female had placed an aerosol container of insect 

repellent in a diaper bag. She had the bag along with her child in a shopping cart in 

a grocery store. The 3-year-old grabbed the container and discharged the spray 

into her eye. The mother immediately flushed the child's eyes at the store eye wash 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 197
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

station. She then took her to a clinic where the child's eyes were flushed and 

examined, and she was discharged. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050243 08/07/2005 A 58-year-old male found a large colony of ants around some wood piled in his 

yard. He mixed an insecticide at eight tablespoons per gallon using a trigger pump 

sprayer. The hose detached from the nozzle, spraying him in the right eye. He 

flushed the eye for 30 minutes. As he continued having eye irritation, he went to the 

ER. He eye was flushed again, examined for foreign bodies and he was 

discharged. 

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

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050244 07/06/2005 A 22-year-old apple thinner sought medical care for eye irritation which he felt was 

due to spray dust on the trees. He did not seek medical care until two weeks after 

initial symptoms. Symptoms may have been aggravated by use of home herbal 

remedy to eyes prior to seeking treatment. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Acetamiprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050245 07/15/2005 A 34-year-old female parks department employee climbed into the back of a truck 

on the way to another job site. Her co-worker had climbed in first. The spray wand 

of his back pack sprayer caught on her clothing and sprayed her in the face and 

mouth. An hour later she went back to the shop, flushed her face and then sought 

medical attention at a walk-in clinic. She experienced brief upper respiratory 

irritation. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050247 07/05/2005 A 43-year-old male apple picker presents to the ER complaining of respiratory 

symptoms. Patient had been picking apples for 15 days and associated his 

symptoms with spray residues on the trees. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Kaolin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050249 07/12/2005 A 36-year-old male developed skin symptoms at work while thinning apples. 

According to spray records the most recent application to the block of trees 

occurred eight days previous to onset. He sought medical care and was referred to 

MD for evaluation. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methoxyfenozide, Imidacloprid, 

Bifenazate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050250 07/10/2005 A 9 month old female was sprayed with a pyrethroid spray by her 3-year-old sibling. 

She cried and pulled on her ear. Her mother took the baby to a HCP. DOH provided 

educational and prevention materials to the mother. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tralomethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050251 08/05/2005 A 27-year-old male and 23-year-old female riding motorcycles were exposed by a 

truck misting/cold fogging for mosquito control. While attempting to determine which 

product they had been exposed to, a 55-year-old male friend arrived. Shortly 

thereafter a second mosquito control vehicle arrived and had not turned off his 

equipment, again exposing the two plus the third person. All three reported 

198 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

symptoms but none sought medical treatment. WSDA investigated the incident. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Naled (ANSI) 

3 Possible 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

050252 08/08/2005 A 21-year-old male unlicensed mixer and loader was exposed from a splash of 

chemicals at work while preparing a tank mix. He was wearing safety goggles. He 

sought medical care. 

Herbicide/algicide: Diquat dibromide 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Esfenvalerate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050255 06/20/2005 A 39-year-old male applying herbicides in a vineyard developed eye symptoms. He 

self-treated for several days before seeking medical treatment. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Glyphosate, monoammonium 

salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050260 08/14/2005 A 64-year-old female applied a herbicide with a hand sprayer to control unwanted 

vegetation in her gravel driveway. The nozzle became restricted. She removed the 

nozzle under pressure and spray came into her face and eyes. She washed her 

eyes and then sought medical attention, as she was concerned about her sight. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050262 08/10/2005 A 47-year-old female sprayed for spiders at her vacation cabin in Grant County. 

She had respiratory problems soon after that persisted for a week. She sought 

medical care one week later, was evaluated, and it was recommended that she 

continue to use an inhaler. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050272 08/26/2005 A 3-year-old boy sprayed insect repellent in his face. The aerosol can was left 

sitting on the floor where the child could pick it up. The child developed immediate 

irritation of his right eye and was taken to a clinic and treated for 'corneal abrasion 

post-chemical exposure'. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050273 08/26/2005 An 18-year-old male retail worker sustained a mild eye injury after opening a case 

of Raid aerosol cans that had been warped in the shipping process. The corner of 

box depressed the activation button on top of one of the cans and sprayed him in 

the eye. He used the eye wash at work and then was assessed in the ER. 

Symptoms resolved rapidly. 

Insecticide and other: Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; Piperonyl 

butoxide; Tetramethrin (ANSI); Methoprene, S1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050276 09/01/2005 A 23-year-old male worker was loading a plane at an airstrip for an aerial 

application to potatoes when he was exposed to fumes from an open hose valve. 

He developed symptoms four to five hours later. He was wearing pants, a long 

sleeve shirt, rubber gloves and 1/2 face respirator at the time. Information on time 

of self decontamination conflicts. 

Unknown: Carbofuran (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 199
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: Moderate 

050277 09/02/2005 A 62-year-old male agricultural worker was exposed at work. He was laying plastic 

on the ground in an apple orchard that may have been treated the night before. He 

was not advised of application and then became ill at home after work. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

050278 09/04/2005 A mother of two small children was concerned about spiders in her home and 

sprayed an aerosol insecticide. She accidentally sprayed her 17 month old 

daughter in the left eye. The mother flushed the child’s eye for 15 minutes and then 

went to an ER. After an exam and evaluation the child was discharged. 

Insecticide: unknown aerosol 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050280 08/16/2005 A 39-year-old female had an asthmatic reaction after aerosol insecticide was used 

in her office building while employees were present. She sought medical care. The 

insect spray was used in violation of employer’s policy and this was addressed by 

employer. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

(ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI); Allethrin, d1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

050281 09/05/2005 A 57-year-old male was applying to the outside of his home to fend off spiders. He 

was dressed in shorts, short sleeve shirt and had no PPE. He said it was 80 

degrees and windy and he knew better. Immediately afterwards he developed chest 

pain, was transported to the hospital and treated for two days. Educational material 

on organophosphates was provided. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Diazinon (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

050282 09/05/2005 A 41-year-old homeowner dissolved a dry granular form of moss killer and applied it 

for one hour to his roof and siding. He did not use gloves. Some of the material 

dripped onto his left hand. He then washed his hands and his left hand began to 

burn. He was seen at the ER twice and treated for first and second degree burns. 

He said that he would wear gloves next time. DOH encouraged use of goggles as 

well. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc sulfate monohydrate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

050283 08/11/2005 A 63-year-old female placed ten mothballs in several rooms in her mobile home, for 

about three weeks. She called WPC and reported allergy like symptoms related to 

product. No additional medical care was sought. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Naphthalene 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050284 09/09/2005 A 20-year-old male asphalt company employee developed ocular symptoms after 

he felt the herbicide he was spraying hit his eyes. He did not seek medical 

treatment, but did go the fire station for advice. The label does not require the use 

of PPE, but the MSDS does. 

Herbicide/algicide: Diuron (ANSI); Imazapyr (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050285 09/09/2005 A 41-year-old male home owner used a moss control product without reading the 

label. He wore no eye protection. While cleaning the spray nozzle he felt a drop of 

200 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

the concentrated product hit his left eye. He rinsed his eye immediately after feeling 

a burning sensation. He later sought medical treatment. 

Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050286 08/21/2005 A 21-year-old male apple picker was exposed at work. Patient associates his skin 

symptoms to spray residues on the trees. Spray records obtained show that the last 

application occurred one month previous to onset. 

Fungicide: Ziram 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Kaolin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050287 05/16/2005 A 20-year-old male returned to his home that had been treated with three products 

three hours earlier by a licensed PCO. He went to sleep and woke up with 

gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms. He sought medical care at an ER. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Deltamethrin, Fipronil, 

Deltamethrin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050288 09/07/2005 A 22-year-old unlicensed commercial applicator had gastrointestinal, neurological, 

respiratory and ocular symptoms. He reported that he had tried to stop a gushing 

leak from the spray tank of a runaway spray truck that went over an embankment. 

He reported that he inhaled and ingested the herbicide and insecticide mix and 

sought medical care. His supervisor said that the employee was only observed to 

be gagging and he was not close to the leak. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Dicamba, 

dimethylamine salt; Dimethylamine 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionate; 

Mecoprop-P 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

(ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050289 09/10/2005 A 65-year-old female was taking care of a relative's dogs and found fleas. She set 

off more foggers than needed for the living space and left the home. On return she 

had respiratory symptoms. She then spread a pyrethrin powder on her carpets. Six 

days later her hands were cold and purple. She sought medical care. Second set of 

symptoms most likely not related. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI), Pyrethrins; 

Piperonyl 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050290 09/19/2005 A 66-year-old female ran over a can of insect spray while mowing her lawn. Spray 

discharged in her face and caused eye injury. She sought medical care. Injury 

appeared to exacerbate previous eye condition. 

Insecticide: unknown (Raid) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050291 08/31/2005 A 37-year-old female employee had respiratory and neurological symptoms after 

wiping up pesticide product that came through a door jam from an exterior 

application for spiders. The application was made at an Alzheimer's care facility. 

The worker smelled the chemical and had contact with it during cleanup. She 

sought medical treatment the same day and did not have objective signs after the 

exposure. WSDA samples were positive for pesticide residues in the area where 

the clean up occurred. 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 201
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI), Pyrethrins; 

Rotenone; Cube Resins other than rotenone 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050292 08/04/2005 A 32-year-old orchard irrigator reported he had an ocular exposure as he drove on 

his motocycle by an herbicide application in the orchard. He sought medical 

treatment four days later. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, Glyphosate, 

isopropylamine salt; Glyphosate, monoammonium salt, Chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-

s-triazine 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050295 09/22/2005 A 82-year-old male presented to the ER with ocular symptoms. While spraying 

outside of his home he got a couple of drops in his left eye. He had his personal 

glasses on. He immediately rinsed his eye and went to the hospital. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; 

Permethrin, mixed 

cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050296 09/21/2005 A 41-year-old female apple picker developed dermal symptoms and sought medical 

care the next day. She associates her symptoms to spray residues on the trees. 

The last application was three weeks previous to onset. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050299 09/08/2005 A 49-year-old male walked out of his office on a lunch break, and breathed the odor 

of a herbicide application made two day earlier. He reported that a landscape crew 

made a broadleaf application and the smell irritated his upper respiratory tract. A 

month later still with upper respiratory effects and he sought medical attention. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050301 10/27/2005 The parents of an 8-year-old male neither returned phone calls nor responded to a 

letter requesting reply. The WPC report described that the child had his hair treated 

for lice control. While rinsing his hair, lice shampoo got into his eyes. His eyes 

became swollen, red and irritated. After calling the WPC, the boy was taken for 

medical treatment. 

Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050304 11/04/2005 A 37-year-old male employee presented to the doctor's office complaining of 

symptoms from inhalation of a fumigant. The medical assessment was "inhalation 

of pesticide exposure". Patient denied DOH interview so further details about the 

exposure were not available. 

Fumigant: Metam-sodium 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050308 11/23/2005 A 53-year-old female shampooed her hair with a lice control shampoo. She got 

some in her eyes and then flushed them. The next morning her eyes were irritated. 

She called WPC and they recommended she seek medical attention. She went to a 

local clinic where she was treated and released. 

Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

202 Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
2005 Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Washington State Department of Health Agency Data Summary 

Case Exposure Date Incident Description 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050309 11/30/2005 A 28-year-old male developed neurological, gastrointestinal and respiratory 

symptoms while he was applying a fumigant by spoon/hand for control of orchard 

mice. He sought medical care and said there were windy conditions and his long 

sleeve shirt probably was exposed to the fumigant dust. His employer provided 

spray records. 

Rodenticide: Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050310 12/11/2005 Parents shampooed their 1-year-old son's hair for lice control. When some 

shampoo got into his eyes, they rinsed out the suds. The next morning his eyes 

were irritated and swollen. He was taken to the hospital ER for exam and treatment. 

He was discharged with improvement. 

Unknown: Pyrethrins 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050311 09/26/2005 A 44-year-old male apple picker developed dermal symptoms while picking. He said 

chemical residues on the tree fell inside his shirt. He sought medical attention 

seven days later. His employer said that the orchard was sprayed nine and 14 days 

before his exposure. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. 

kurstaki, Acetamiprid 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050313 08/09/2005 A 41-year-old male pest control technician was covered with insecticidal dust when 

his hand-held duster malfunctioned. He reported dermal symptoms and sought 

medical treatment 3 days later. Patient did not return phone calls from DOH. DOH 

reached his supervisor for interview. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Deltamethrin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

050314 12/05/2005 Three males, ages 31, 32 and 38 were nearby when a truck load of waste 

materials, including pesticides, powdered chlorine and bromine, was dumped at a 

transfer station and caught fire. All the individuals had respiratory symptoms and 

one person sought medical care. Pierce County Health Dept. and DOE coordinated 

their investigations. 

Unknown: 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, Diazinon (ANSI), Dicamba, 

dimethylamine salt 

3 Possible 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 203

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

Orting Pierce 309238483 

Tenkoz Govern 4E (Chlorpyrifos) Lorsban 15G (Chlorpyrifos) Tenkoz trifluralin 4EC 

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Thionex 50W 

15 Vegetables 

and Melons 

WSDA T013-2005 

8/18/05 1/26/06 

Failure to Abate Citat307 60005-1 No respirprogram $1250.00 307-60605 – No Resp$1250.00 307-60805 – Not effectraining $1250.00 General Citations:Employer did not certifhad been abated $100Penalties Assessed $

La Center Clark 306710054 

Pesticide Herbicides NuCOP (Cupric hydroxide) Lorsban Javelin WG Aim Chlorpyriphos 4F Foamy Q&A Acid Disinfectant 

25 Berry Crop DOH 7/11/05 

7/12/05 

Serious Citations No Accident Preventio$150.00 General Citations Pesticide storage near No Chemical Hazard CProgram No hazardous chemicaNo MSDS for each cheNo First aid trained peNo orientation on field Penalties Assessed $
Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

La Center Clark 309018612 

Lorsban 4E (chlorpyrifos) 

20 Berry Crops 

Blueberries 

DOH 7/11/2005 7/11/05 

7/13/05 

Serious Citations No Accident PreventioNo hand washing facilNo toilet General Citations

No written chemical hacommunication prograNo chemical inventory No MSDS No water with single uNo orientation on sanitNo first aid trained em

Penalties Assessed 

Woodland Benton 308442755 

Captan 50W,Actellic SE (cholinesterase inhibitor) Systec 1988 Truban 25 EC Terraclor 75,Thiram granules Merit 75 

20 Nursery 

Bulbs 

1/11/05 3/16/05 

Serious Citations No emergency eyewasNo pesticide handler ochemicals training in th$100.00 General Citations

Respiratory Protection No information on voluuse No medical evaluation No annual respirator fiWearing respirators wImproper respirator sto

Penalties Assessed $

206 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

Wenatchee Chelan 309010213 

Thionex 50W (50% endosulfan) 

26 Deciduous 

(apple) Fruit Trees 

Employee sprayed Thionex for 4 hours with a broken respirator power cord. 

5/17/05 6/7/2005 

6/7/05 9/23/05 

Serious Citation: 

Did not inspect and re$1,800.00 

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

General Citation: 

No safety meeting min

Penalties Assessed $

Vancouver Clark 309241941 

Round Up Ultra Max II (glyphosate), Curtail (chlorpyralid), Brush Spray, Fence Row Spray, Pasture Spray, Garlon 4, Hansten, Glystar Plus, Weedone LV6, Dual II Magnum, Buccaneer 

6 Dairy 

(540 acres) 

8/2/05 9/2/05 

9/29/05 

Serious Citations:No emergency eyewas$300.00 No MSDS for hazardo$300.00 No respirator fit tests $General Citations:No Chemical Hazard cprogram No labels on containerchemicals No Medical EvaluationNo respirator program Food stored in toilet anstorage rooms (referrePenalty Assessed: $7

Pasco Franklin 308582253 

Pesticides 15 County 

Auditor’s Office 

2/16/05 2/24/05 

3/16/05 

Serious Citations:No emergency eyewasNo PPE hazard assesNo Chemical Hazard CProgram including em$200.00 Penalty Assessed: $1
Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

Mountlake Terrace Snohomish 307963017 

Super Trimec Crossbow Round up Renovate Cassaron Orthonex Merit Weed master 

35 Lawn and 

Garden Services 

9/1/04 2/17/05 

Serious Citations:No emergency washinGeneral Citations: 

No chemical hazard coprogram or inventory No safety committee oNo written respirator pNo medical evaluation 

Penalty Assessed: $2

Quincy Grant 309014140 

Herbicides Round Up Original Max, Atrazine 4L 

12 Wheat Farm 

Onion packing 

10/11/05 10/21/05 

Serious Citations:No Accident Preventio$250.00 General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CProgram Penalty Assessed: $2

Mt Vernon Skagit 308673607 

Pesticides 11 Flower 

Nursery Stock 

4/15/05 4/22/05 

4/27/05 

General Citations Incomplete Pesticide iNo Chemical Hazard CProgram No accident PreventioNo Penalties Assess

Mill Creek Snohomish 308446699 

Bayer advanced rose and flower 

18 Retail 

Nursery 

1/21/05 3/2/05 

General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CProgram No hazardous chemicaNo Respirator Program 

208 

No medical evaluation No Penalties Assess
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

Woodland Benton 308670116 

Roundup Crossbow 

2 Timber 

Tract 

3/23/05 3/30/05 

4/12/05 

General Citations: 

No Chemical Hazard CProgram No Accident Preventio

No Penalties Assess

Royal City Grant 309137339 

Trifol Deliver Calcium Silguad 

35 Apple 

orchard 

Entering before REI 

8/11/05 8/3/05 

8/19/05 

General Citations: 

No soap and single-usPesticide safety informPersonal protective eqpesticide-contaminated personal clothes. 

No Penalties Assess

Mattawa Grant 308754738 

Organophosphate pesticides 

46 Deciduous 

Tree Fruits (apples) 373 acres 

5/18/05 6/29/05 

11/28/05 

General Citations:No worker training or fNo Respiratory ProtecNo cartridge change oNo Penalties Assess

Pasco Franklin 308667377 

Pesticides 14 Bulk 

material transport, tankers 

3/17/05 4/22/05 

5/5/05 

General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CProgram No Penalties Assess

Redmond King 309237394 

Methyl Bromide 5 Catalogue 

and Mail Order 

Employer receives fumigated containers 

8/4/05 8/15/05 

8/22/05 

General Citations No Accident Preventioincluding method to enare not exposed to MeNo Penalties Assess

Chewelah Stevens 309238988 

Glyphosate Chlorothalonil Etoxazole Abamectin 

33 Nursery – 

Ornamental Trees, Sod 

8/19/05 9/08/05 

General Citations:Employee with no checommunication training

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

Olympia Thurston 30844113 

Herbicides Tahoe 4E 

1 Forestry 12/17/04 

2/7/05 

General Citations Personal Protective Eqnot worn as required, epesticide w/o gloves reNo Penalties Assess

Prosser Cowlitz 309237527 

Pesticides 8 Wheat Farm 

40 acres 170 acres 

7/18/05 9/27/05 

General Citations: 

Did not display pesticid

Wilbur Lincoln 309237923 

Guthion 50WP Lorsban 4E Rally Microthiol Sulfur Promotion Thiosol Sevin Amid thin Sorba MG Regulaid Zinc 50 Simazine 4L Princip Solicam DF 

1 Orchard 

Wheat farm 

8/31/05 10/31/05 

General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CProgram No Accident PreventioNo Respiratory ProtecNo respirator fit testing No Penalties Assess

Greenacres Spokane 309134542 

Surflan Rhomene Roundup 

14 Nursery – 

Ornamental Flowers 

7/26/05 8/04/05 

General Citations: 

No training on pesticidNo respiratory program evaluations 

No Penalties Assess

210 Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

Spokane Spokane 309237964 

Roundup (Glyphosate) Deadline MP (Metaldehyde) Ornamec Arsenal 

2 Nursery – 

Ornamental Flowers 

8/30/05 9/07/05 

General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CProgram No hazardous chemicaNo MSDS for each hazNo training about hazaNo Penalties Assess

Endicott Whitman 309386985 

Pesticides Phenoxys Ureas 

2 General 

Farm Cattle 4200 acres of Wheat 

10/18/05 10/18/05 

General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CProgram No Accident PreventioNo MSDS for each hazused. No safety meeting minNo Penalties Assess

Olympia Thurston 308443118 

herbicides 1 Forestry 

Services 

12/17/04 1/3/05 

General Citations:Inadequate PPE for heNo Penalties Assess

Connell Franklin 309375087 

herbicides 2 Beef Cattle 

Feedlot 

9/21/05 10/22/06 

General Citations No Chemical Hazard CProgram 

Colbert Spokane 309998144 

Herbicides Cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides 

3 Christmas 

trees 

10/5/05 10/10/05 

General Citations No Accident PreventioNo Penalties Assess

Pasco Franklin 309589323 

Pesticides 14 Bulk 

material transport 

12/09/05 12/13/05 

No Citations issued No Penalties Assess

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005

City, 

County 

Inspection 

# 

Pesticides 

Involved 

# of 

Employee 

Type of 

Business 

How 

Exposed 

Other 

Agencies 

Involved 

Incident 

Date/ 

Complaint 

Date 

Inspection 

Dates 

(Opened) 

(Closed) 

Pesticide R

Citations/

Royal City Grant 309625192 

Trifol Deliver Calcium Silguad 

35 Apple 

orchard 

12/22/05 12/23/05 

No Citations issued No Penalties Assess

Prescott Walla Walla 309012243 

Rally Sevin 

80 Apple 

Orchard 

Spraying & possible drift onto employees thinning apples 

DOH 5/25-31/05/ 

6/13/05 

6/30/05 6/30/05 

No Citations issued No Penalties Assess

Pasco Franklin 309016285 

Rally Intrepid Calcium Sevin 

80 Apple & 

Cherry Orchard 

Spraying cherries & apples possible drift onto employees thinning 

DOH 5/25-31/05/ 

6/13/05 

6/30/05 6/30/05 

No Citations issued No Penalties Assess

Mattawa Grant 309479855 

Pesticides Imidan, Dipel, Calcium Chloride 

0 Apple 

Orchard 

Spraying apples w/o decontamination, improper respiratory protection 

DOH 10/26/05 12/2/05 

12/2/05 

No Inspection No employees at time to Mexico No Penalties Assess

212 Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
A

L

A

ppendix D 

icense Types and Enforcement 

ction Definitions 

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types 

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Enforcement Action 

Definitions

WSDA I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 213

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. 

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. 
214 WSDA I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

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. 

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. 
A

Department of Ecology Maps 

ppendix E 

Active Pesticide Contaminated Sites (130)

Through 2005

Washington Depart

Toxics C

7

Data displayed in this map relate to sites in the Facility Site database that have pesticides as a recordedcontamination group. Actual pesticide concentrations are not tracked in this database, and thus noquantitative comparisons can be made with these data. Data used create this map are current as ofOctober 2007. Due to the frequency of data being posted to the Facility Site database, some sites whichhave received "No Further Action" status may not be listed as such in this map.

y:\\..PIRT\PIRT_active_pesticides_in_2005 

#0

West Valley Middle Scho

Mount Vernon Plaza

Oak Harbor Freight Terminal

Terrace Heights Eleme

Mountainview Elementary

Heller 

Blasdell Residence WA WSU Vancouver Res & Ext

Texaco Station 632320402

West Valley Junior 

West Valley High S

Pesticide Contaminated SitesAdded in 2005 (11)

Washington Depart

Toxics C

7

Data displayed in this map relate to sites in the Facility Site database that have pesticides as a recordedcontamination group. Actual pesticide concentrations are not tracked in this database, and thus noquantitative comparisons can be made with these data. Data used create this map are current as ofOctober 2006. Due to the frequency of data being posted to the Facility Site database, some sites whichhave received "No Further Action" status may not be listed as such in this map.

y:\\..PIRT\PIRT_added_in_2005

#7#7 #7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7#7#7

#7

#7#7

#7

#7

#7#7#7

#7

#7 #7

#7

#7 #7

#7 #7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7 #7

#7

#7#7#7#7#7#7

#7

#7

#7

#7#7#7

#7#7

#7

#7#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7#7

#7#7 #7 #7

#7

#7

#7#7#7#7#7

#7#7#7

#7#7#7#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7

#7#7

#7

#7#7#7#7#7#7

#7

#7#7 #7

#7

#7

Pesticide Contaminated Sites (195)Through 2005

Washington Depart

Toxics C

7

Data displayed in this map relate to sites in the Facility Site database that have pesticides as a recordedcontamination group. Actual pesticide concentrations are not tracked in this database, and thus noquantitative comparisons can be made with these data. Data used create this map are current as ofOctober 2007. Due to the frequency of data being posted to the Facility Site database, some sites whichhave received "No Further Action" status may not be listed as such in this map.

y:\\..PIRT\PIRT_all_pesticides_in_2005 

Appendix F 

2006 PIRT Letters

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

Division of Environmental Health 

Office of Environmental Health Assessments 

234 Israel Road S.E. Town Center 3, PO Box 47846, Olympia, Washington 98504-7846 

Tel: 360.236.3184  Toll Free: 1.877.485.7316  FAX: 360.236.2251 

 TDD Relay Service: 1.800.833.6388

PIRT Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 221

February 14, 2006 

Matthew C. Keifer, MD, MPH 

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences 

University of Washington 

Box 357234 

Seattle, Washington 98195-7234 

Dear Dr. Keifer: 

As the chair of the Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel, I wish to express the 

panel’s support for your research efforts to identify and characterize causes of cholinesterase depression 

among pesticide handlers in Washington State. We understand that you will be submitting a proposal to 

NIOSH as part of the PNASH renewal which will be focused on this topic. With over ten years of 

experience in surveillance of pesticide-related illnesses in Washington, we recognize the need for 

understanding what risk factors may lead to pesticide overexposure and how those factors can be 

prevented. 

We also want to express our support for your research on the Test-mate cholinesterase kit technology for 

potential use in the clinical facilities that conduct cholinesterase testing in Washington. This kit may 

present a promising technology for future recognition of pesticide-related depressions. If proven, it will 

help clinicians provide quicker data and recommendations about lowering exposures to pesticides. 

We wish you the best of luck with your proposal. 

Sincerely, 

Maryanne Guichard 

Chair, PIRT Review Panel 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

Division of Environmental Health 

Office of Environmental Health Assessments 

234 Israel Road S.E. Town Center 3, PO Box 47846, Olympia, Washington 98504-7846 

Tel: 360.236.3184  Toll Free: 1.877.485.7316  FAX: 360.236.2251 

 TDD Relay Service: 1.800.833.6388

PIRT Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 223

May 26, 2006 

TO: Gary Weeks, Director 

 Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

FROM: Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel 

SUBJECT: Recommendations for the Washington State Cholinesterase Monitoring Program 

The PIRT Panel has reviewed the changes proposed by the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) for 

the state cholinesterase monitoring program. Currently, there are two major changes being proposed. One 

would end L&I’s focused follow-ups on workplaces where there is evidence of over-exposure to 

cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. The other would transition the analytical testing from the state public 

health laboratory to one or more commercial laboratories. Either of these changes could reduce the 

program’s ability to identify and correct conditions leading to pesticide over-exposure. 

In addition, L&I has indicated that the future of the Cholinesterase Stakeholder and Scientific Advisory 

Committees past 2006 is uncertain. 

Tracking and investigating potential over-exposures to cholinesterase–inhibiting insecticides has great 

public health value. Washington should heed the experience of the California cholinesterase monitoring 

program, which was instituted in 1974. The California program lacks the structure for monitoring its 

performance and has run without oversight of its efficacy or accuracy for many years. Consequently, 

there has been nearly complete failure to use these valuable data for intervention and prevention. Recent 

efforts by California regulators to demonstrate the program’s value have been hindered by the absence of 

systematic data collection (Das et. al.1

). A recent examination of their laboratory quality found inadequate 

consistency and quality in cholinesterase testing by participating laboratories (Wilson et. al.2

). 

Washington can and has done better. Central data collection of test results, analysis of program impact, 

and oversight of laboratory performance are key improvements over the California program and are in 

keeping with the Governor’s emphasis on demonstrating efficacy of program expenditure. 

The PIRT Panel members strongly recommend that this high value program be maintained by collecting 

data centrally and ensuring that current laboratory standards are maintained. 

L&I should establish and implement a long-term process for tracking and reporting on core performance 

measures for the cholinesterase monitoring program. PIRT recommends the following core activities: 

 

1

 Das, Rupa. State of California, Department of Health Services. Personal communication about trying to track 

cholinesterase results through the California ChE system. 2

 Wilson BW, Henderson JD, Arrieta DE, O'Malley MA. Meeting requirements of the California cholinesterase 

monitoring program. Int J Toxicol. 2004 Mar-Apr;23(2):97-100.
Mr. Weeks 

May 26, 2007 

Page 2 

1. Collect test results and maintain them in a central repository. PIRT would support continued 

operation of the Cholinesterase Monitoring Data System at the State Department of Health. 

2. Track actions taken by employers when cholinesterase test levels show greater than 20 percent 

depression. Require employers to send L&I a copy of the report required by the rule to document 

actions taken (for example, what actions were taken, when, duration of worker removal). 

Monitoring workplace evaluations by employers in response to cholinesterase depressions, as 

required by the cholinesterase monitoring rule, is especially critical as L&I ends its intensive 

follow-up effort. 

3. Track laboratory performance on Quality Analysis and Quality Control, turnaround time for the 

analysis, and turnaround time for reporting results to the central reporting system and health care 

providers. Any drop in performance should be investigated. 

4. Maintain a database that tracks handling hours, pesticides used, equipment used, and job activities 

(mixer, loader, applicator, equipment repair) between blood tests. 

5. Periodically assess enrollment of covered employees to better understand barriers to their 

participation in the monitoring program. 

6. Implement a unique identifying number for each enrolled pesticide handler to assist tracking their 

test results. 

PIRT also recommends that interested parties on the Stakeholder and Scientific Advisory Committees 

continue to participate in tracking the implementation of the rule through the transition to a commercial 

laboratory and to employer follow-up on cholinesterase depressions. 

Finally, it is important that L&I fund and publish an annual report with results of testing so that the many 

interested parties can review the program outcomes, including the number of depressions detected, the 

percent of all tests that exceeded action thresholds, the number of employees with depressions, and the 

number of employers associated with depressions. The report should also include analysis of data for the 

elements 1-5 listed above. Information from the first two annual reports of the program have been used to 

re-evaluate and improve the personal protective equipment requirements on pesticide labels, to improve 

worker safety training, and to focus research attention on alternative pest control products and application 

methods. Continued reporting will ensure that data may be applied to improve policy and prevention 

activities. 

Please contact me at your convenience if you would like to discuss these issues further or if you or any of 

your staff would like to attend one of our PIRT meetings. I can be reached at 360.236.3391 or email at 

maryanne.guichard@doh.wa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Maryanne Guichard 

PIRT Panel Chair 

224 PIRT Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

Division of Environmental Health 

Office of Environmental Health Assessments 

234 Israel Road S.E. Town Center 3, PO Box 47846, Olympia, Washington 98504-7846 

Tel: 360.236.3184  Toll Free: 1.877.485.7316  FAX: 360.236.2251 

 TDD Relay Service: 1.800.833.6388

PIRT Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 225

June 13, 2006 

Valoria Loveland, Director 

Washington State Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504-2560 

Re: Modification of the General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228 

Dear Ms. Loveland: 

The Washington State Pesticide Incident Report and Tracking Review (PIRT) panel sent a letter to 

WSDA dated November 10, 2005 that recommended 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 has since learned that a project may be implemented by WSDA to pilot the proposed 

changes. 

The PIRT Review panel requests an update from WSDA on the status of the pilot project. 

Sincerely, 

Maryanne Guichard 

Chair, PIRT Panel 

Signed on behalf of the PIRT panel 

PIRT Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 227

December 28, 2006 

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

401 M Street SW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Support for petitions to disclose inert ingredients on pesticide labels 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

The Washington State Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel was established by the 

Washington State legislature to ensure that state agencies responsible for pesticide regulation coordinate their 

incident investigations, reporting, and education activities in a timely manner to protect workers and the public 

from pesticide misuse. The PIRT Review Panel consists of representatives from six state agencies, the 

University of Washington, Washington State University, the Washington Poison Center, a toxicologist and a 

member of the public. 

The Washington State PIRT panel supports the petitions submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) by the State Attorneys General and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, which 

requests that 381 substances already known and regulated as hazardous chemicals under other EPA statutory 

provisions be disclosed on pesticide labels. We find this petition to be a reasonable alternative to full 

disclosure of inert ingredients. The Panel advocates full disclosure of all ingredients on pesticide labels, 

including inert ingredients, as stated in the letter to the EPA from Washington State Department of Health, 

Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health Assessments. We realize that for a number 

of reasons, full disclosure of inert ingredients is not currently feasible, but we strongly recommend that the 

EPA work toward requiring this in the near future. 

Users of pesticides have a right to know what they are purchasing and using to enable them to protect their 

health. This knowledge is also important for health professionals in diagnosing illnesses related to pesticide 

exposure, and for ensuring data quality in states that track pesticide-related health issues. 

Thank you for your consideration of this letter. 

Sincerely, 

Rob Duff 

Chair, Washington PIRT 

cc: Tom Eaton, Washington State Attorney General

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PESTICIDE INCIDENT REPORTING AND TRACKING REVIEW PANEL

243 Israel Road Southeast 

P.O. Box 47846 

Tumwater, Washington 98504 – 7846

Appendix G 

2006 DOH Letters and Publications 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

Division of Environmental Health 

Office of Environmental Health Assessments 

234 Israel Road S.E. Town Center 3, PO Box 47846, Olympia, Washington 98504-7846 

Tel: 360.236.3184  Toll Free: 1.877.485.7316  FAX: 360.236.2251 

 TDD Relay Service: 1.800.833.6388

DOH Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 229

October, 6, 2006 

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

401 M Street SW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

RE: Support for petition to disclose inert ingredients on pesticide labels 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) supports disclosure of all ingredients on pesticide 

labels. DOH monitored discussions in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Inert Disclosure 

Stakeholder Workgroup meetings between 2000-2002 to better understand the barriers to full disclosure. 

We understand that listing ingredients and their percentages would create a commercial stress on pesticide 

registrants who are trying to protect their products from duplication by competitors. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) should pursue remedies such as allowing registrants exclusive use of their 

product for a limited period of time. This business model has been used in the registration of cosmetics 

and drugs and has allowed listing of ingredients without competitive harm1

. 

In the meantime, the petitions submitted by the State Attorney’s General and the Northwest Coalition for 

Alternatives to Pesticides are asking for a reasonable improvement in pesticide labeling. Substances 

already recognized and regulated as hazardous chemicals under other EPA statutory provisions should be 

disclosed on pesticide labels. According to the petitions submitted, this would add 381chemicals to the 

requirement for disclosure. Examples are naphthalene, dibutyl phthalate, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, and 

sodium chromate. 

We understand from our investigations of pesticide-related illnesses that disclosure of ingredients can be 

medically important. In our experience, more complete ingredient information on the pesticide label 

would: facilitate proper diagnosis and care of patients who are over-exposed to pesticides; improve the 

capacity of consumers to protect their health; and improve the accuracy of data generated by states who 

track illness related to pesticides. 

Improving patient diagnosis and care 

Our staff (five investigators) speak with many health care providers every year and see medical records 

for most of the cases we investigate. We notice that health care providers (HCPS) frequently seek 

information on the pesticide product ingredients. Some HCPs call a poison center to get more detailed 
Mr. Stephen L. Johnson 

October 6, 2007 

Page 2 

information on the ingredients. Some call the phone number listed on the label to get this information. 

Full listing of ingredients on the pesticide label would speed this process for the busy clinician. It would 

also ensure that clinicians have complete information, which is especially important for diagnosis and 

230 DOH Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 

management of an allergy type reaction. 

Other HCPs appear to assess patients only for the active ingredients listed on the label. We do not know 

whether this latter group may misunderstand the term “inerts” to “other ingredients protected by trade 

law” would clarify the situation for HCPs. 

Improving capacity of consumers to protect their health 

Public disclosure of all pesticide ingredients is also a good idea. Many consumers and pest control 

professionals have access to chemical-specific health information and could use this information to 

choose pest control products with the least potential to cause health problems. Disclosure of ingredients is 

especially beneficial for people with known allergies and other sensitivities. Listing of all pesticide 

ingredients would help them protect their health by avoiding ingredients to which they have known 

sensitivities. 

Improving accuracy of state surveillance 

DOH could use more detailed information on inert ingredients to improve our understanding and tracking 

of pesticide related illness. Our agency is charged with evaluating the poisoning cases we investigate for 

their probability of being related to the pesticide exposure. We are generally using the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Sensor classification scheme, which considers how well we 

were able to confirm the pesticide exposure and the health symptoms reported, and considers how well 

the case fits with known patterns of adverse reactions to the pesticide involved. DOH tracks illnesses both 

by formulated product and active ingredients. Our data sometimes point to product “inerts” such as 

surfactants or solvents as the likely source of health impacts. Improved information about the other 

ingredients in pesticide products will help us more accurately evaluate cases and will result in better 

accuracy in the data reported from our program to the state of Washington Legislature, EPA and NIOSH 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Rob Duff 

Director, Office of Environmental Health Assessments 

Work: 360.236.3181 Fax: 360.236.2251 

Toll free: 1.877.485.7816 

1

Final Report to the Pesticide Program Dialog Committee on the Activities of the Inert Disclosure 

Stakeholder Workgroup, March 2000 through April 2002. April 23, 2002. 
Washington Report

Preventing Pesticide Exposure through Illness Monitoring 

in Washington State

Joanne Bonnar Prado, M.P.H.

Washington State is a leader in protecting children, workers, and other state residents 

from exposure to toxic substances. Washington is one of nine states that actively tracks and 

investigates pesticide-related illnesses. Since 1970, the Washington State Department of Health 

(DOH) has investigated cases of pesticide illness and built a nationally recognized system to 

monitor and prevent these illnesses. 

DOH uses pesticide illness data to support recommendations about pesticide policy and to educate 

health care providers, schools, and the general public. These data are important tools in preventing 

farmworkers and their families from being exposed to pesticides. Our Pesticide Program staff 

attend community health fairs and help train pesticide handlers who work at farms to avoid 

pesticide exposure. Our data are also used to strengthen consumer safety education. DOH’s Web 

site informs schools about the hazards of using pesticides when children are present and 

encourages the use of safer pest control methods at schools and homes. 

From 2000-2004, DOH investigated 709 cases of pesticide illness in the agricultural environment 

and 745 cases not related to agriculture. Farmworkers who apply pesticides are at greatest risk 

since they may work with concentrated forms of highly toxic pesticides. To detect the early 

warning signs of pesticide overexposure in farmworkers who handle pesticides, DOH public 

health lab partners with the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) to 

monitor cholinesterase, an important blood enzyme. DOH alerts L&I and the worker’s doctor if 

enzyme levels are abnormal so that the worker can be protected from further exposure. 

DOH works with many partners to monitor and prevent pesticide illnesses in children and 

pregnant women. The Washington [State] Poison Center and the Washington [State] Association 

of Migrant and Community Health Centers contact us when pesticides may be involved in an 

illness. State and local agencies and community groups use the findings from these investigations 

to target their prevention efforts. DOH does not investigate chronic illness or latent exposure 

situations. 

In 1989, the Washington State Legislature created a special multi-agency panel to monitor 

pesticide-related incidents. Representatives from several state agencies meet regularly with 

representatives from the University of Washington and Washington State University, the 

Washington [State] Poison Center, and others. The Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking 

Review (PIRT) panel centralizes information about pesticide complaints into one annual report, 

identifies illness trends or problem situations, and recommends preventions. A representative from 

DOH serves as chairperson of the PIRT panel. 

If you suspect that pesticide exposure may have made you sick, you can report this directly to the 

DOH Pesticide Program. Contact information is available at the Web site. Health care providers 

and others may also contact the Washington [State] Poison Center to report an illness. 

DOH Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 231
Joanne Bonnar Prado, M.P.H., is a public health advisor with the Office of Environmental Health 

Assessments, Washington State Department of Health. Ms. Prado was a member of the technical 

committees that developed the statewide chemical action plans for mercury and PBDE flame 

retardants. Currently, she works to evaluate and improve exposure prevention and health 

education activities. 

Telephone: 360-236-3172 

E-mail: joanne.prado@doh.wa.gov 

Resources:

Washington State Department of Health, Pesticide Program 

www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/default.htm

Activities of the PIRT panel and annual reports of pesticide incidents in Washington 

www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/PIRT/default.htm

Washington State Department of Health, School Environmental Health and Safety Program 

www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/School/default.htm

Integrated Pest Management in schools and homes in Washington 

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/upest/

Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at the University of Washington 

http://depts.washington.edu/pehsu/

Washington Poison Center 

www.wapc.org/

Institute for Children’s Environmental Health 

www.iceh.org

Northwest Bulletin: Family and Child Health 

232 DOH Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report