# 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 pestic ide-related illness to Wa shington 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: Pestic ide-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 Medi cal 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 Sa fety 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

Wa shington 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 En forcement Action Definitions

Washington State Department of Agri culture, Pesticide License Types__________ 213

Washington State Department of Agricult ure, 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-Re lated 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-Re lated 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 Complain ts, 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 Agricult ural 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 Ir rigation 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 No n-Occupational Cases by Source, 2005* __72

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

Table 31. Pesticide Involved in Cases* Invo lving 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-Agricult ural, Non-Occupational Cases Exposed to Pesticide Applications by Professional* a nd Non-Professional Applicators, 2005** ____80

Table 36. DOH cases* involved with Agricultural Pesticide Drift___________________82

Table 37. Pesticide Involved with Report ed 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 WP C 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 Agen cies Pesticide Related Events, 2005 _______20

Figure 2. Number of WSDA Co mplaints 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-Agricult ural 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 D PP 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 Licens e Status of Applicator, 2004 – 2005 ______87

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

Figure 22. DOSH Pesticide-Related Inspec tions 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 Trac king (PIRT) Review Panel was created
by RCW 70.104.090 to monitor pesticide- related incidents that have suspected
health or environmental effects. PIRT pa nel 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 an d report findings to the PIRT panel for
evaluation. PIRT submits an annual repor t 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 repres ents the number of people involved.

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

WSDA Ecology DOH L&I Claims WISHA WPC

193 1 17/38 2/3 0 2 WSDA

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, Ec ology complaints by event, DOH incidents by

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



## It is difficult to aggregate PIRT data be cause each agency collects a different
type of data. For example, data from 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 pe sticide 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. Bas ed 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 hour s is expected to exceed the threshold
of 30 hours in 30 consecutive days, as de fined 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 work ers at the workplac e evaluation level and
eight workers at the workplace removal le vel. 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)

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 12

## grant to investigate root causes of pest icide-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 su pporting 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 pr oject 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 petit ion 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 t hese 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-re lated 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 inspection s. 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 fire s, five involved unsafe pesticide storage
and handling, and two involved pesticide disposal or waste concerns. Ecology is
responsible for oversight of contaminat ed areas requiring cleanup or monitoring.
During 2005, Ecology placed 11 new pest icide-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 in cidents 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 specif ic 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) a nd 77 were non-occupational. Of the 34
occupational cases, 18 were handling pestic ides 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 reje cted. 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 defi nitely, probably, or possibly related to
the pesticide exposure.

Of the 41 DPP agricultural workers, 32 clai ms involved workers in the tree fruit
industry, three involved the potato indu stry, and three were in nurseries or
greenhouses.

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

## 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 desc riptions 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 Agriculture 123 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 Li cense Involved with Violations 113

Referred 2 Commercial applicator 27 Verbal warning 6 Unlicensed 3 2

Private applicator 2 3

* No action indicated 77 St ructural 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 3 2 D efinite, Probable or Possible Cases 1 88 Definite, Probably or Possible

Cases 2 2 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

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

# Introduction

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

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

2002 2003 2001 2004 2005

WSDA Complaints 225 255 222 200 193

E cology Complaints 3 5 4 6 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 Wo rker Protection Standard (WPS) for
agricultural workers.

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

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

• L&I 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 enfor ces other workplace safety rules.

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

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

Pesticide-related cases are referred betwe en PIRT agencies when appropriate. For instance, if a WSDA investigation into a pesticide label violation finds 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 refe rrals result in overlapping agency data
for cases involving pesticide-related illness.

Introduction I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 18

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

illness in the state.

Aggregation of PIRT Data

The overlap in pesticide-rel ated cases between agencies for 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 represent s the number of events and the second
number represents the number of pe ople involved. For example, WSDA
responded to 193 complaints about incident s involving a pesticide application.
The Ecology Spill Response Program in vestigated one incident from WSDA.
DOH co-investigated 17 incidents from WSDA incidents involving 38 human

illnesses. In two incidents, three worker s filed an L&I claim. Two incidents were
reported to WPC.

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

DOH L&I Claims WSDA Ecology 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 2 20/252 9 1/93 4 /5 1 30

91/93 93 3/3 L&I Claims 2/3 1/1 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, Ec ology complaints by event, DOH incidents by

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



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

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

Figure 1 illustrates how PIRT agency datase ts 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 Repor ting 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 da ta were discussed in depth in the 2004
Annual Report (pages 21-26). The limitati ons 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.

Introduction I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 20

## 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 Repor ting 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 ill ness 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 sus pected pesticide-related illness is a

Notifiable Condition. Materials were distri buted, 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, j ournal 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 Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 23

## (Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health). In addition, DOH staff
demonstrated online professional resource s for providers regarding identification
of pesticides, evaluation of patients by conducting expos ure 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.

I n 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 re porting pesticide-re lated 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 Pub lic Health Tracking Network have
partnered with Inland Northwest Health Se rvices (INHS) to explore the feasibility
and usefulness of obtaining electronic r eports of pesticide illness cases from
emergency department data based on pesticide-related ICD-9 CM codes. The
purpose of this pilot project is to deter mine: a) whether this method of obtaining
reports will increase t he completeness and time liness of pesticide illness
reporting, and b) what would be requi red institutionally and technically to
automatically provide these data to DOH. To date, INHS has deployed the

technical tools needed for case extraction and secure automated electronic

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

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

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 24

## Recommendation 2 DOH will provide updates to PIRT on activities related to the NIOSH funded projec t “Identifying preventable causes of pesticide-related illness among agricultural

workers.”

Lead: Dorothy Tibbetts/Cynthia Lopez

In July of 2005, DOH received funds fr om 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 present ed 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 occupat ional 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 requi red piece of PPE or were wearing PPE
improperly. Factors associated with la ck of required PPE included: wearing
sunglasses or regular pr escription glasses instead of approved eye PPE, lack of
training/supervision of handlers, and ha ndler 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, us e 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 Inci dent 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 requirem ents. In addition, the summary cites

factors that have contributed to safe r 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 docu ments 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 re quirements, and verification system.

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

• Reconsidering the retaliation provisions of the WPS.

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

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 26

## 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 cr ops associated with reported pesticide
exposure cases are tree fruits, one of the pr imary agricultural sectors of the state
economy. These are labor intensive crops requiring workers to be thinning,
pruning, or harvesting during the same ti mes of year that pesticides are applied.
Tree fruit industry pesticide incidents ar e 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/Topi cs/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 applic ation 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 pers onal behaviors during pest icide 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 Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 27

## At the PIRT panel’s suggestion, Washin gton 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 Fr uit 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 a ttend. During last year’s Orchard Spray
Application Field Forum, pesticide labe ls and state restrictions generated significant dialogue. The intent of the 2007 orchard drift symposium will be to

evaluate issues related to label drift st atements, state regulations, and how they
are enforced in Washington. The tentat ive agenda includes presentations by an
EPA product manager to discuss risk mi tigation 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 prov ide 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 assess ing droplet spectra released from
aircraft. WSU is also seeking additional funds to update the fluorometer owned
by University of Idaho for spray pattern te sting. 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 aer ial 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 perti nent 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.

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 28

## 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 Stra tegy 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 fi rst 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 in volving repellents. This allows DOH
to identify pesticide illness cases specifically associated with West Nile virus
control efforts. A DOH database query br ought up six mosquito events in 2005.
Table 6 summarizes DOH cases associated with mosquito control, from 2002
through 2005.

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Inci dent 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 info rmation 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 (C hE) 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 m eeting. The ensuing discussion provided
an opportunity to share their perspective on factors contributing to cholinesterase

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 30

## 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 c ontaminated clothing after the worker
experienced a cholinesterase depression. Pr oblems 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. Sinc e 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 in structor or investigator may encounter
more barriers in training than a person bo rn 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 fa ctors including: decreased use of
organophosphates by growers, decr eased 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 me mbers 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 progr am is that it has helped to identify
existing problems with worker training . There has been an improvement in
workplace handling over the past thr ee 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 responsi bilities 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 Inci dent 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 proc edures relevant to PIRT, including the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) and RCW 70.104, which created PIRT.

He also provided the following: Overvi ew 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 Or der (to promote fairness, consistency,
and efficiency in the conduct of meetings) and Suggested Guidelines for Meeting
Minutes. PIRT approved the latter two document s 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 Univ ersity of Washington’s Department of
Occupational and Health Sciences. The pur pose of the study was to identify
factors that put pesticide handlers at ri sk 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 cholin esterase 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 pr actice 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,

PIRT Panel Activities I Pesticide Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 32

## 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 progra m, with six specific core activities for
accomplishing this. The letter also called for ongoing involvement of the
Stakeholder and Scientific Advisory Commi ttees, 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 WS DA 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 agenc y 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 s ubstances used as inert ingredients,
listed as hazardous chemicals by variou s statutory authorities. The attorneys
general urged the EPA to make regulatory changes requiring disclosure of these

hazardous chemicals when used as iner t ingredients. If the EPA cannot or will
not require this, the petition requests t hat 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 cu rrently feasible, but recommending that the

EPA work toward this in the near future. Di sclosure of ingredients is important for
health professionals in diagnosing illnesses related to pesticide exposure, for
ensuring data quality in states that tr ack 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 Inci dent Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 33

# Agriculture

Washington State Department of Agricultur e’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 disp osal of pesticides in Washington State.

WSDA investigates all complaints it receives concerning possible pesticide
misuse, storage, sales, and distribu tion; 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 compla ints (Table 7). After investigation,
WSDA determined that 117 (61%) complain ts involved pesticide applications and
71 complaints (37%) were unrelated to actual applications. In the remaining five
complaints, the application status wa s 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 pop ulation, types of pest problems, and the
nature of complaints between the easter n and western portions of the state. In
general, western Washington complaints we re about structural pest inspections
(SPI), homeowner complaints about dr ift, intentional misuse, and complaints
about unlicensed applicators. In 2005, the number of complaints investigated for
SPI’s decreased significantly from prev ious years. Most eastern Washington
complaints were about agricultural applic ations 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 excepti on 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 investig ations 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

20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05

King 21 Spoka ne 28 23 King 28 Spoka King ne 22

Grant 20 King 27 Pierce 22 Grant 20 King 20

Spokane 20 Yakima Grant 19 Spokane 17 Chelan 26 18

Yakima 18 Thursto n 17 Spokane 19 Benton 15 Grant 16

Benton 13 17 Yakima 13 Yakima 15 Yakima Pierce 12

Pierce 12 Chelan alla 16 Benton 12 Walla W 11 Douglas 11

Lewis 11 Grant 1 6 Chelan 12 Pierce 11 Pierce 1 0

T hurston 10 Multiple 9 sh 10 Benton 8 Clark 11 Snohomi

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 huma n 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 compla int not valid, substantiate the initi
complaint, or identify additional violations. For example, an initial complaint

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 36

## concerns a possible drift. When the agenc y 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. Al though 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 categoriz ed 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 Initia l Complaints by Number, 2005

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Dr if t Human Exp o sure

L icense Mi s us

e

Str

u c tu

ra

l Pest I

n s pect
D ire

c t

D isposal

D i st

r i buti

o n



## 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-agricultur al 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 struct ural 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

1 Animal exposure - drift Exam fraud 1

Bee kill 1 Failure to provide reports/records 3

B ird deaths - misuse 1 F aulty 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 re lated 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 partic ipated 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 av erage (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.

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 38

## 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 me thod 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): Incident s 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.

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

A ctivity 2 001 2 002 2003 2004 2 005

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 viol ator cannot be proven, no action can be
taken. Sometimes the applicator has mo ved away, often out of state, and cannot
be located. However, violations generall y give a good representative picture of
the validity and severity of pesticide incidents.

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 40

## Type of License in Complaints with Violations

In 2005, WSDA licensed approximately 4,300 commercial applicators and
operators and over 10,800 pr ivate 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 pr ivate applicators,
commercial applicators make many mo re applications per licensee and more
applications on land not owned by the applic ator. 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 conduct ing 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 vi olations 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 or chards, the most frequent complaints,
as in previous years, involved applicat ions 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 i ssued for agricultural violations in 2005.

Table 12. WSDA Agricultural Violations, 2005

Most Frequent Target Site* Most Frequent Complaint Site**

A pp les 8 Cars/ p ro p ert y 13

Cherries 4 Peo p le 6

Pears 2 Wheat 3

Orchard 1 A pp les 2

Potatoes 4 Gra p es 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 i ssued for non-agricultural violations for

2005.

Table 13. WSDA Non-Agricu ltural 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, pa rticularly for drift reduction techniques.
Some violations may reflect the transi ent nature of employment or lack of
applicator training and some, particularl y for SPI’s, may reflect willful fraud.
Economic pressure to sell real estate may encourage inspectors to overlook
possible wood-destroying organism c onditions. 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.

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 42

## Applicators must comply with all prec autions and directions on the pesticide
label. The following case illustrates probl ems that can occur when an applicator
becomes careless 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 direct ion. 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 bu s 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 inse cticides 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 a fter complaint investigation is complete.
Table 14 gives a detailed description of eac h 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% P esticides 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%

R esidue found, no health symptoms (human, animal); health symptoms not verified; multiple minor violations; off label use; worker protec tion violations; PPE violations with no health symptoms; plants with temporary or superficial damage only; Structural Pest Inspection faulty inspections; DOH classified "possible". 7 2 114 1 12 8 3

41.5% 5 4 2 3 2% 4 5% 5 0% 2 8%

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". 3 5 31 2 2 1 8 16 3 1 5.5% 1 2% 1 0% 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

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 44

## 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 tr uck 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 contai ned 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

I n 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 perc ent of the complaints to the Yakima
and Spokane offices are from herbicide us e, approximately 50 percent to the
Wenatchee office are from insecticide use and approximately 50 percent to the
Olympia office are from non-pesticide a pplications (generally house inspections).

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 45

## F igure 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



## O verall, complaints about applications in 2005 continue to show a greater var
of pesticides than seen in previous year s. There were four complaints about
azinphos-methyl drift and no complaints about endosulfan dri ft. Complaints on
both products continue to decrease. Com pared to previous years, herbicide drif
constitutes the greatest number of comp laints. Applicators may be using more
pest-specific products with a greater di versity 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 g eneral, 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 (untra ined) applicators and the high visibi
of misuse of these products. Many complaints involved tank mixes of several

p roducts or complaints about drift from an unspecified or unknown pes

Table 15. Active In

C omplaints, 200

Active Ingre dient

ous/Unknown 1

Diuron 4 Glyphosate 20

2,4-D/Phenoxy 19

Miscellane 5

Carbaryl 4

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 46

## 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 thes e 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 th e determination that a violation of state

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

Sometimes more than one corrective action is taken on a case. In this report,
only one corrective action per category is identified. For example, if more than
one Notice of Correction was issued, the action would be listed as one Notice of
Correction. However, if more than one type of corrective action was taken, such
as a Notice of Correction and a Notice of Intent (which could happen if several
applicators were involved in the same investigation), both types are listed.

The corrective actions taken in 2005 ar e listed in Table 16. (See Appendix D for
definitions of the Enforcement Actions).

Table 16. WSDA Agency Actions, 2001 – 2005

2001 2002 2004 2005 2003

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

258 224 201 Total actions 231 193



# 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 ma y 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), Depa rtment 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 a nd regulations; registers pesticides for
standard and state specific uses; license s pesticide applicators; administers
recertification courses; conducts traini ng on the Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard; administers a waste pestic ide 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 establ ishments 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 Ta ctic). 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 rece rtification meetings and provided
up-to-date pesticide safety information.

Agriculture Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 48

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

• Initiated a project with the Universi ty 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 cont ainers 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 su mmary 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 Initia tive, and other projects. Ecology is
responsible for oversight of contaminat ed areas requiring cleanup or monitoring,
including areas contaminated with pestic ides. Ecology’s pollution prevention and
sustainability efforts emphasize preventi on of overuse and misuse of pesticides.

This report presents dat a for three programs: Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program; Toxics Cleanup Program; and Water Quality Program.
These programs track data on pesticide spills, on the cleanup of pesticide
contamination, and on the use of pesticides to protect water quality. This report
also provides a brief description of fi ndings from the first three years of an
ongoing cooperative study by Department s 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 e ducation 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

2001 2002 2003 Type of complaint* 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, investi gation, or referral, it is classified as
“No follow-up.” A request for informatio n 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 re sponse time. Ecology investigated 19
of the 39 complaints.

Of the 39 pesticide-related complain ts 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-re lated (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 impact s 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 refe rral did not name recipient). Ecology
immediately notified DOH of two incidents where humans were potentially
exposed to pesticides.

Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 52

## The following two incidents are examples of pesticide-related complaints referred
to the Spill Program.

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

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

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

the herbicide or gasoline. As the herbicide wa s 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 t he 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 expans ion foam, greatly reducing the amount of

smoke produced. Ecology investigators notif ied 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: Cont aminated 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 Contam inated 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 qualit y. 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 co vered 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

T he Oyster Grower’s NPDES Permit is an individual permit issued directly to the
Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Associati on by Ecology’s Southwest
Regional Office. It allows the use of carbaryl, an insecticide in the carbamate
family, to control burrowing shrimp in oyster beds. This permit was reissued in
2006 and expires June 30, 2011. In 2005, 576 acres were treated with 4,536
pounds of carbaryl.

N oxious Weed NPDES Permit

T he 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.

Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 54

## T able 19. Total Product Applied Under Noxious Weed NPDES Permit, 2005

P roduct G allons 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 perm it was issued to 16 of 97 Washington
irrigation districts during the 2005 applicat ion 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 conv erted 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 arriva l 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/bri quettes 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 Agricult ure have a cooperative agreement for
an ongoing study investigating pesticid e occurrence in salmonid-bearing

streams. Results of the firs t 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 to xicological criteria for fish, aquatic
invertebrates, and plants; (2) Washington State Water Quality Standards; and (3)

EPA National Recommended Wa ter Quality Criteria.

Ecology Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 56

## A total of 51 pesticides and degradate compounds were detected in the urban
and agricultural drainages. Ten of thes e (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 residu es 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 practi ces 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 su mmary of pesticide-related investigations during 2005

.



# Background

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

This DOH report on 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 numerou s sources, including Washington Poison Center (WP C), 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 reporti ng 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 pe sticide illness incidents and conducts
preliminary interviews to determine if the incidents should be investigated. An incident is investigated if all of the following conditions apply:

• a pesticide exposure is reported

• symptoms are reported

• the individual saw a health care provider

• the pesticide exposure occurred du ring the last three months

• the pesticide exposure occurred in Washington State

• the pesticide exposure was not int entional (e.g., suicide gesture)

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

Increased Investigation of WPC cases – December 2004 through February

2005

Prior to the implementation of electron ic reporting, WPC reporting criteria
included symptomatic illness where the per son had seen a health care provider
or WPC had referred the person to a health care provider. DOH was interested in
capturing and evaluating calls in which a health care provider was not initially
involved. 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 case s opened for investigation during these
months. Due to limited resources, DOH di scontinued investigating cases in which
health care providers were not involved beginning 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. DO H uses the NIOSH Case Classification
System to distinguish between Definite, Probable, Possible, Suspicious,
Insufficient Information, and Unlikely cases. Case classification criteria are listed
in Appendix B. Minimal criteria for assignment to Definite, Probable, and Possible
classifications are that reported symptoms are characteristic of known
toxicological effects of the pesticide agent, and the temporal relationship between
the exposure and symptoms is plausible. Further description of Definite,
Probable, and Possible (DPP) cases is provided in Table 23.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 60

## 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 ev idence of illness and are observable on examination (e.g,. low heart rate, cough, rash, depressed cho linesterase 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 case s were determined to be definitely,
probably, or possibly related to pestici de 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 Po ssible 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 artifa ct 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 clas sified 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 su fficiently 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 pat ient’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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 62

## 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 medica l attention. DOH classified the case as

unlikely to be related to the pesticide expos ure. 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 ma y 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 ca lled 911, took medication for itching, and

symptoms quickly resolved.



# Severity of Medical Outcome

DOH uses the NIOSH Severi ty matrix for classifying signs and symptoms
associated with pesticide cases (Appendix B). The low/mild category includes
transient and spontaneously resolving sy mptoms such as nausea, vomiting,
shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, and skin or eye irritation. With
low/minor severity cases, there is minimal time loss (three days or less) from

work or normal activities. Even relative ly 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 t he 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 fi ve 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, pr obable, 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 disso lved 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 vegetati on 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 shel f. When he reached up to move a container

of herbicide, the lid was missing and the pro duct 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 64

# 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 wa s 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 incl ude 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%) we re 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 c ontinue full investigations of minor
symptomatic cases which were managed at home. DOH continues to screen
symptomatic reports of pesticide ex posures 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 an d summarize these cases. Starting in
2007, DOH will begin tracking and describing this data as part of our pesticide
illness surveillance program. DOH will expl ore 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 pestici de 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 invo lved two persons, three involved three
persons, one involved four persons an d 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 arou nd greenhouses on the campus of a private

school. Their supervisor reported that it wa s 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 chemical s: 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 relate d to pesticide exposure. Table 25 lists the
11 counties with the most reported ca ses. 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 66

## 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

F ranklin 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 possibl y 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 ca ses 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 ca ses defined as definite, probable, or
possible by agricultural and non-agricu ltural 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-agricultur al 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 investigat ed agricultural-related cases occurred in
the three months from April through Ju ne, 2005. This differs from 2004 where
about the same percentage (67%) of agri cultural 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 az inphos-methyl applications are being supplanted by use of spinosad and acetamiprid products, which have much lower
acute toxicity. According to USDA Nation al 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 68

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

A gricultural N on-Agricultural T otal Cases

J anuary - 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

2 0 12-18 1 3

19-29 7 18 5 7 37

30-49 20 41 12 13 86

50+ 5 5 20 13 43

32 66 45 Total 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 pestic ide 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 case s 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 occupatio ns 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 report ed 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 de finitely, probably or possibly due to pesticide exposure.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 70

# A Complex Occupational Case from 2005

DOH staff made a decision not to enter the following case into the Pesticide
Information Management System (PIMS), t herefore 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 target s 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 worki ng in unventilated spaces such as crawl
spaces. Most of the pesticide product l abels 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 f ilters 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 poss ible (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 10 30 20

Spray 12 0 12

Surface residue 16 0 16

Contact 8 0 8

Indoor air 0 1 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 peopl e in their homes, driving on roads, in
parks. In 2005, there were five in cidents where more than one person was exposed to drift by an agricultural pestic ide. 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 72

## 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 pestici de 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 pesticid es). 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 prob lematic 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 inse cticides, there are three factors which
may decrease the number of cases over time: planned phase-out of certain

cholinesterase inhibitors by EPA, improvements in work er 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-bas ed 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 ar e commonly tank-mixed with other active
ingredients, the number of total cases in volving 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 ar e 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 DO H 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 cont inued 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 t he number of handlers that ex perienced 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 74

## 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 DO H as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide exposure. **Agricultural workers who handle cholinesterase inhibitors via mixi ng, 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 ha llmark symptoms of systemic carbamate
insecticide poisoning and was advised to se ek medical attention by the WPC.
This person chose to manage their symp toms 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, t earing 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 orchar ds 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 handl ers 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 sym ptoms, 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 S T S T S T T

1 2 Azinphos methyl 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 4 1 3 1 8 3 5 5 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 gl asses 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 enro lled 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 76

## 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 fa ce 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 pestic ides 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 in cluded 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

A pples 1 2 2 1 4 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 (T able 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 residentia l 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 78

## Table 34. Exposure Site for Non-Agricultural, Occupational and NonOccupational Cases, 2005*

Occupational Non-Occupational

Exposure Site

6 66 Residential building or grounds (home, apt)

Other institution (nursing home) 2 0

5 0 Other manufacturing

Office, retail or service businesses 13 4

1 1 Park, lake, camp grounds

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-a gricultural, 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 re lated 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 adult s, 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 flea s, 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 DO H as definitely, probably, or possibly due to pesticide exposure.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 80

# Highlight on Pesticide Drift

2004 and 2005 Pesticide Spray Drift and Human Health Incidents

Exposure to pesticide drift is an importan t cause of documented pesticide-related
illness in Washington. The DOH data were compiled for drift incidents
(applications that drifted) and cases ( people reporting symp toms) 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 referr ed 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) re lated to pesticide exposure.

During the years 2004 and 2005, pesticide drift was involved in 36 incidents
involving 62 cases of illness or injury. Th is 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%)



## Agricultural Drift Non-agricultural Drift

n = 251 non-agricultural cases n = 141 agricul tural 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 dri ft. 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 agricu ltural lands, and use of best management practice s 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 b y a single case with a large number of people involved.

T able t h Agricultural Pesticide D rift

Year Incidents DPP cases

2 000 2 0 5 9

2001 1 1 2 3

2 002 2 5 4 6

2 003 1 6 2 4

2 004 1 3 1 7

2 005 13 30

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

exposure

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 82

## F igure 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 agr icultural 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.

F igure 17. DOH Drift DPP Cases Involving Tree Fruit, 2002 – 2003

Apples Pears Cherries

0 5 10 15 20 n = 25 cases



## T ree 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 Ag riculture 2005 Fruit Summary published in
July 2006, the number of reported cases abov e 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

## P esticides Associated with Agri cultural Drift Illness/Injury

I nsecticides 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 t hat 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.

F igure 18. DOH Drift DPP Cases Involving Tree Fruit, 2002 – 2003

Fungicides

(15%) Insecticide/
Fungicide mix
(15%)

Insecticides
(38%)

Herbicides

(32%)



## T able 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 we re present in seven applications that
drifted involving 13 DPP cases.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 84

## T able 37. Pesticide Involved with Reported Agricultural Drift cases*,

2004 - 2005

P esticide A pplications DPP Cases

Azinphos-methyl Alone 2 2

I n combinations 2 3

Chlorpyrifos Alone 2 2

I n combinations 3 8

O ther 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 spraye rs. 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 naus ea. 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 Wa shington 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 ri sk of pesticide drift. Applicators are
required to report wind speed, wind dire ction, 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 observati ons (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, DO H explored linking DOH data to local
weather station data from Public Agricu ltural 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 projec t 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

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 86

## 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 case s



## Proximity to Residences

More than half the people with symptoms (58%) were residents in nearby homes,
people driving their vehicles on public road s, or people in other nearby buildings
Many of these residences border working agr icultural 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, plan ting 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/Publicatio ns/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 ve rified 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

G eneral Drift Complaints D rift Involving Year T otal H uman 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 appl ications to tree fruit. Strategies for
preventing drift may include increased use of non-pesticide pest management
(mating disruption with pheromone, for ex ample), new technologies that reduce
drift (such as air induction nozzles and tunnel sprayers), education of pesticide
applicators and farm managers about be st management practices for drift
reduction, recognition and incentives fo r 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-no tification of nearby residents would allow

them to close windows and further minimi ze the effect of an accidental drift.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 88

## 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 te chnical 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 Prevent able Causes” at the Winter

Conference of Sentinel Event Notifi cation 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 t he 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 co nference 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 Relat ed Illness staff on pesticide-related
illness reporting and pesticide toxicology.

• Presented on pesticides and Parkinson’s disease at the Washington

State Environmental Health Associ ation 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 re lated illnesses/injury to the UW

PNASH Center for use in their new medical education modules.

• Presented to Washington State Commi ssion on Pesticide Registration on
the Pesticide Program’s exposure and prevention data.

• Presented at the Washington St ate 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.”

L icensed Pesticide Applicators

I n 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 we re in English and Spanish and covered
pesticide safety, use of personal protective equipment, and the acute and chronic
health effects of exposure to pesti cides. Approximately 930 applicators
participated in these trainings at ni ne locations in eastern and western
Washington.

F arm 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.

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 90

## • Presented update on Pesticide Incident Summary Reports to Commission on Hispanic Affairs.

• Attended the two day conference in Ca lifornia on Western Agricultural
Health and Safety.

• Attended the Western Migrant Str eam 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 member s maintain contact with agricultural
grower groups at regular board meetings of the Pesticide Advisory Board, the
Washington State Commission on Pestic ide 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-relat ed 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 departm ents and 31 health care providers
in 12 eastern Washington counties. During these visits, staff provided
information on the Pesticide Progr am, 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 DO H Pesticide Illness Monitoring and
Prevention Program, and emphasized the importance of reporting
pesticide-related illness as a Notifiable Condition.

G eneral Public

• Distributed pesticide education and sa fety 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 Wo rkers Clinic, Group Health, Klickitat
County Health Department, Ya kama Indian Nation, Yakima
Neighborhood Health Service and Un iversity 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 Pe sticide 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. Th is 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 ill ness surveillance data.

• Published an article in Northwest Bulletin: Family and Child Health on “Preventing Pesticide Exposure thro ugh 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/t opics/pesticides/pdfs/AJIM-emergresponder.pdf

Partnerships

The DOH Pesticide Program staff participates on various advisory boards,

stakeholder committees, and other or ganizations around the state:

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

• Cholinesterase Monitoring Stakeholder Committee for L&I

• Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State
University

• Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center "For Healthy Kids"

Health Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 92

## • 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 Trac king 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 Fore sts (non-voting, advisory member)

educational member

• Washington State Commission on Hispanic Affairs

• Washington State Commission on Pestic ide 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 I ndustries’ 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 Serv ices, 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 Sa fety & Health Assessment &
Research for Prevention group investigates pesticide-related issues. The
Claims Program administers wage replacement and medical benefits
through worker compensation to Wa shington 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 agr icultural 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 es sential to the normal function of the
nervous system. A depression in cholineste rase activity can lead to a range of
physical symptoms, including blurred vi sion, headache, increased sweating,
nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. A severe depr ession 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 bef ore 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 monitori ng 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 evaluati on. 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 requ ires employers to remove the handler
from exposure to cholinesterase inhibiti ng 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 t heir 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 trig gered their employers to perform a
workplace evaluation and generated alerts to L&I.

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 96

## • 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 ev aluations 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 empl oyer. This is the largest number of employees

with significant ChE depressi on 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 invest igated 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 result s 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 ch olinesterase 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 confi dential consultations with employers
to evaluate workplaces where employees had cholinesterase depressions
compared to their baseline tests. Becaus e these consultations are confidential,
they are not included in this report. During 2005, L&I also conducted research
investigations with employers to ev aluate 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 depres sion 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

.

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 98

## 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/Ato Z/Cholinesterase/files/ChELegRpt2004Fi
nal.pdf

. 

# Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH)

Other DOSH Activities

To enforce safety and health in the wo rkplace, 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 physica l harm could result from a condition
which exists, or from one or more practices, means, methods, operations or
processes which have been adopt ed 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 descr iption 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 em ployee 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 occu rre 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 ra nches 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.

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 100

## 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” vi olations 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 cita tions 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 in cluding Capta

1988, Truban 25 EC, Terraclor 75, and Thiram. After inspection,

employer for the following violat ions. 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) a nd general (66) WISHA violations cited

in 2005 were:

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

• Hazard communication deficiencies in safety programs, including missing
written programs, chemical inventor ies, 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

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 102

## • Not posting safety, emergency or pesticide spray information as required

No water or no single-use cups provided

Abatement of previously ci ted 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



### Gene ral Se rious



# L&I Claims Insurance Services Di vision, Claims Administratio

P

The Insurance Services Division, Clai ms Administration Program processes

epts or rejects a claim based on w hether a work-related in jury or illness is 

# n
rogram

workers’ compensation claims initiated by on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In
2005, the Claims Administration Program re ceived 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 ar e 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

ened or . Illness cl aims may e either opened up to two

i nitial e dical visits are u s uall

deter

.

• K Th er to p la

an injury ss.

T able 40. Sta s o L&I Claims Init i a lly

2001 20 02 20 03 20 04 200

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 Lossare 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 definit ion 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.

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 104

## 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 classifi ed 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-r elated. Of the 64 claims that L&I
s valid work related injuries, DOH classified 45 (70%) as definitely,
ossibly related to pesti cides (DPP). Based on DOH criteria, the

re classified as insufficient eviden

pesticide exposure (DPP).

Table 41 illustrates the difference in ev aluation criteria and perspective between
the two agencies.

Table 41. Comparison o

DOH Classification

L&I Claim

Determination Definite Probable Not

Possible Suspicious Unlikely Enough

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 DP P related to pesticide exposure. Of the
41 DPP agricultural workers, 32 claims invo lved workers in the tree fruit industry,
three involved the potato industry, and th ree were in nurseries or greenhouses.

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 105Agricultural 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 st aying inside of the truck.

Non-agricultural case: A 31-year- old King C ounty 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, cons truction, pest control, maintenance,
parks, and others. Occupati onal exposures are described in detail in the DOH
Section under Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness.

L&I Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 106

# 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 info rmation only. WPC also receives calls
concerning rodenticides, animal exposures, and other pesticide issues.



# Human Exposure Calls

In 2005, WPC received 2,430 calls concer ning human exposures to pesticides.
The percentage of pesticide-related human ex posure 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 ident ifiable 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 suspec ts 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 exam ple, 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 pr oviders 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 t he University of Washington Clinical
Informatics Research Group to develop a system for automated selection of
WPC call records that meet DOH reporti ng criteria. Using the University of
Washington extraction routine and a secure f ile transfer mechanism, files with all
pertinent reports are now automatically s ent from WPC’s Toxicall data system to
DOH’s Pesticide Program every 24 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 pe sticide 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 du ring 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.

WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 108

## By 2005, the electronic reporting sy stem 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 call s involved illnesses definitely (33),
probably (11), or possibly (56) related to the pesticide exposure (Table 43).

These 100 illnesses are included in the deta iled 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 classifi ed 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 involv ing 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 playi ng 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 fo r three hours. The 10-year-old boy developed

blurry vision and a cough, went home, show ered, 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 hum an 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 abou t potential herbicide exposures, representing 19 percent of the 2,430 pe sticide 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

16 2 0 35 Moth repellent 17

Rodenticide 248 20 87 1 356

874 278 Totals 1,245 33 2,430

WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 110

## 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, t he totals over-represent the number of
people exposed.

Table 45. WPC Type of Insecticide Involved in Human Exposure Calls,

2001 – 2005

2001 2002

Generic description 2003 2004 2005

Arsenic 3 8 5 6 5

Borates/Boric Acid 20 33 22 29 49

35 46 60 47 Carbamate only 37

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 5 42

R epellents (Insect) 8 9 9 6 1 56 1 55 137

Rotenone 1 2 1 3 1

V eterinary insecticide 74 6 6 1 1 1 2

O ther 1 14 1 55 181 266 2 82

U nknown 1 23 1 28 128 124 1 35

T

otal 1 ,217 1 ,203 1,166 1,452 1,482



## In 2005, 229 (15%) of the insecticide-re lated 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 seve rity 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 cho linergic 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 mo derate 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 investi gated by DOH because of differences in
agency classification criteria. DOH primarily investigates WPC referrals where
medical care was sought. Table 46 show s 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.

WPC Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 112

## 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

# A ppendix A Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel

P esticide Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090

2 006 PIRT Panel Representatives

P esticide Incident Definition

P rimary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticides Exposure

A gency 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, comprehensiv e unbiased investigat ion capability, and enhanced community education efforts are required to maintain this state's responsibilities to provide for public health and safety.

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

.

RCW 70.104.080 Pesticide panel -- Generally. ( 1) There is hereby created a pesticide incident reporting and tracking review panel consisting of the following members:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Severability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942

. RCW 70.104.090 Pesticide panel -- Responsibilities.

T he responsibilities of the review panel shall include, but not be

limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ 1991 c 3 § 364; 1989 c 380 § 69.]

E ffective 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.]

S everability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942

.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 113

# 2 005 and 2006 PIRT Panel Representatives

D epartment of Health (Chair) ........................ Marianne Guichard, Rob Duff

D epartment of Agri culture ............................. Ann Wick

D epartment of Ecology ................................. Maria Victoria Peeler

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

Department of Labor an d Industries ............. Gabrielle Toutonghi, Pam Edwards

Department of Natural Re sources ................ Karen Ripley

General Public............................................... Alic e C. Larson, PhD

P racticing Toxicologist .................................. St even Gilbert, PhD, DABT

U niversity of Washington .............................. Matthew Keif er, MD, MPH

W ashington Poison Center ........................... William O. Robertson, MD

W ashington State Universi ty......................... Allan Felsot, PhD



# 2005 and 2006 PIRT Panel Coordinators

Department of Health.................................... Lucy Harter, Fran McBride

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 114

# P esticide 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 t he environment in which the incident

occurs.

• Documented impacts to the environment including ground, surface water
or soil contamination, crop or othe r 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.

A dopted April 19, 1990

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 115

# P rimary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticide Exposure

W ashington State Department of Agriculture

T he 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 pe sticides and their containers. WSDA

administers the Federal Insecticide, F ungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the state pesticide laws. In administering these programs, WSDA

• Adopts and administers pesticide regu lations including state pesticide
registration;

• Tests and certifies pesticide applicators;

• Administers continuing education requi rements for pesticide applicators;

and,

• Investigates complaints of pesticide misuse or misapplication.

W ashington State Department of Health

T he Washington State Department of Heal th (DOH) is responsible for carrying
out rules and regulations adopted by the St ate Board of Health for the purposes
of protecting and enhancing public health and welfare. This includes the

determination and documentation of healt h effects resulting from pesticide
poisonings and exposures, and delineation of public health risks. The major

elements of DOH Pesticide and Surveill ance 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 provider s, 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 illnes s/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.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 116

## W ashington State Department of Ecology

T he Washington State Department of Ec ology (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 chemical s through administration of the Worker
Right to Know Law, Chapter 49.70 RCW, and administ ers the Workers Compensation Program, Title 51 RCW, through the Division of Industrial

Insurance.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources

The Washington State Department of Natu ral Resources administers the Forest
Practices Rules and Regulations, WAC 222. Section 38 of WAC 222 pertains to
forest chemicals including pesticides and fertilizers. T hese regulations are written
to protect timber resources, fish, and wild life 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 St ate Department of Health (DOH) to
respond to incidents within time perio ds based on severity. In the event of a
pesticide-related hospital admission, death, or a threat to public health, DOH
must respond within 24 hours. For all other cases, DOH must respond within 48

hours after notification.

Washington State Labor and Industries

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

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 118

# Appendix B Case and Severity Classifications

National Public Surveillance Syst em Relationship Classifications

NIOSH Severity Classifications

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category

# National Public Surveillance System Relationship
Classifications

Definite Case : 1. Laboratory clinical or envir onmental 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 envir onmental evidence corroborates
exposure, 2. Two or more post-expo sure 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 up on written or verbal report by case,
witness, application, observation of re sidue and/or contamination by other than a
trained profession or other evidence sug gesting 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 othe r evidence suggesting that an exposure
occurred, 2. Two or more post-exposu re abnormal symptoms reported but do not
meet the threshold of a definite, and 3. The finding documented under health
effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between
the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the findings are consistent
with an exposure-health effect.

Suspicious Case : 1. Laboratory clinical or envir onmental 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 ev idence 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 envir onmental 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 ev idence 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 e ffects 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 documentat ion of adverse health effects.

Not a Case: Strong evidence that no pest icide 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 disa bility. Usually, less time is lost from
work or normal activities (3-5 days) co mpared 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 hos pitalization to prevent death. Signs
and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal failure
and/or respiratory depression. The indivi dual 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 expos ure, 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.

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 120ORGAN SYSTEMSEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODEFATALHIGHMODERATELOWPesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report121Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category(Modeled after Persson et. al., 1998 and includes SPIDER database elements)1234DeathSevere or Life-threatening SignsPronounced or ProlongedSigns or SymptomsMild, transient, and spontaneouslyresolving symptoms••••••••••••GastrointestinalSystemMassive hemorrhage/perforation of gutDiarrhea (G14,sign only)Melena (GI7)Vomiting (GI6,sign only)Abdominal pain, cramping (GI1)Anorexia (GI2)Constipation (GI3)Diarrhea (GI4,symptom)Nausea (GI5)Vomiting (GI6,symptom)Respiratory System•••••••••••Cyanosis (RESP 2) + Respiratorydepression (RESP 7)Pulmonary edema (RESP6)Respiratory arrestAbnormal pulmonary x-rayPleuritic chest pain/pain on deep breathing (RESP8)Respiratory depression (RESP7)Wheezing (RESP9)Dyspnea, shortness of breath (RESP4,sign only)Cough (RESP1)Upper respiratory pain, irritation (RESP3)Dyspnea, shortness of breath (RESP4,symptom)Nervous System•••••••••••••••••Coma (NS3)Paralysis, generalized (NS10)Confusion (NS4)Hallucinations (NS99 Other)Miosis with blurred vision (NS14)Seizure (NS5,symptom)Ataxia (NS1,sign only)Slurred speech (NS12)Syncope (fainting) (NS17)Peripheral neuropathy (NS11,sign only)Hyperactivity (NS2)Profuse sweating (NS13)Dizziness (NS15)Headache (NS7)Seizure (NS5,sign only)Ataxia (NS1,symptom)Peripheral neuropathy (NS11,symptom)Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual ReportORGAN SYSTEMSEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODEFATALHIGHMODERATELOW1234DeathSevere or Life-threatening SignsPronounced or ProlongedSigns or SymptomsMild, transient, and spontaneouslyresolving symptomsCardiovascular 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 ininfants/children, 80-90 in neonates (CV1)Tachycardia / heart rate=140-180 in adults, 160-190infants/children, 160-200 in neonates (CV4)Chest Pain (CV7) + Hyperventilation, Tachypnea(RESP5)Conduction disturbance (CV3)Hypertension (CV6)Hypotension (CV5)Metabolism••••Acid Base disturbance (pH< 7.15 or>7.7)Acid Base disturbance (pH = 7.15-7.24 or 7.60-7.69)Elevated anion gap (MISC4)Fever (MISC1)Renal System••••••Anuria (GU2)Renal failureHematuria (GU3)Oliguria (GU2)Proteinuria (GU4)Polyuria (GU1)Muscular system••••••Muscle rigidity (NS9) + elevated urinarymyoglobin + elevated creatinineFasciculations (NS6)Muscle rigidity (NS9)Muscle weakness (NS8,sign only)Muscle weakness (NS8,symptom)Muscle pain (NS16)Local effects on skin•••••••Burns, second degree (involving >50%of body surface area)Burns, third degree (involving >2% ofbody surface area)Bullae (DERM1)Burns, second degree (involving <50% of bodysurface area)Burns, third degree (involving <2% of body surfacearea)Skin Edema/Swelling, Erythema, Rash,Irritation/Pain, Pruritis (DERM3 - 7)Hives/UrticariaLocal effects on eye•••••••Corneal ulcer/perforationCorneal abrasion (EYE3)Ocular burn (EYE2)Lacrimation (EYE4)Mydriasis (EYE6)Miosis (EYE1)Ocular pain/irritation/inflammation(diagnosis of conjunctivitis) (EYE5)Other effects••Fatigue (MISC5)122Malaise (MISC6)

# Appendix C Agency Data Summaries

Washington State Department of Agriculture

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program

Washington State Department of Health

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, WISHAWSDA 2005 Case DataDouglasPInotificationCommercial2/18/2005same day1noCrack/creviceNon AgInsecticideboric acidnone NOC notification/schoolOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Applicator applied without notifying school so the school could not notify students, staff, parents./ Verified. Also did not submit records, applied to off-labelsite.CommercialDouglasPIdrift topropertyPrivate Applicator3/6/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticide Fungicidesulfur oilnone NOC pears/car, houseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application of lime-sulfur to pears drifted on cars and house / Verified.airblastGrantPNImisuseNA1/10/2005same day0NAN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI willowsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Complainant thought neighbor was poisoning his willows. / Complaint was left on voicemail. Returned call by voicemail. No further contacts could be made.Complainant could not be located.ResidentialGrantPIhuman exposure - driftPriv Ap / Comm Consultant3/18/2005same day3yesGroundAgInsecticide Insecticidechlorpyrifos oilDOH NOI apples/humansOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Airblast application toapples drifted on car, driver andchild. Adult and child became ill with rash and vomiting. / Residues found in car air filter (car waswashed) and vegetation by site. DOH "probable" onillness. Dr. not told of possible exposure.airblastChelanPIhuman exposure - driftPrivate Applicator3/28/2005same day1noGroundAgInsecticidediazinonnone NAI cherries/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift occurring from application to cherries. Says he can taste the spray drift. / Anonymous complaint. Could not find complainant. No residues detected offsite.airblastPage 1 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataChelanPNIexam fraudNA8/10/2004same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI examsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Person who took the exam was not the person listed on the application. / Verified, but could not determine the guilty party.The person whose name wasused did not appear to be involved.NADouglasPNIbee killNAunknownsame day0noN AAgN ANAnone NAI beesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Bee kill. / Death of hive due to loss of queens. Hive split and may have been moved before recovery.NADouglasPIhuman exposure - driftPrivate Applicator5/3/2005same day3noGroundAgInsecticide Fungicidecarbaryl novaluronDOH NOI apples/person, houseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Airblast application to apples drifted on nearby residence. /Verified. Two women became ill (respiratory symptoms) after smelling pesticides. Residuesdetected. No medical sought.airblastChelanPImisuseNA4/30/2005one day1noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone NAI sprayed wetlandOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Complainant stated wetland was sprayed. / Could not verifythat standing water was present at time of application.ResidentialChelanPIdrift topropertyunknown5/5/2005same day1nounknownAgunknownunknownnone NAI orchard/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift to property from orchard. / Phone was system not workingso the complaint one month old. Complainant wished to drop case since the grower hassince been more careful.UnknownPage 2 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataChelanPIdrift to carPrivate Applicator5/12/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticide Insecticidesevin myclobutanilnone NOC apples/carOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Car drifted on from an application to apples. / Verified. Residue of both pesticides was found off target.airblastChelanunknownmisuseunknownunknownsame day3nounknownNon Agunknownunknownnone NAI grapes, lilacs, maplesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Grape plants, maples, lilacs and rose bushes were killed along driveway. Thinks it may be due to neighbor's application. /No analysis run as little chanceof finding infractor. Nocost analysis of loss.ResidentialDouglasPIdrift to carsPrivate Applicator5/23/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticidecarbarylnone NOC cherries/carsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Airblast application to cherries drifted across highway and onpassing cars. / Verified. Observation by WSDA employee.AirblastGrantPIdrift to cropUnlicensed5/10/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicideunknownnone NAI weeds/onionsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide sprayed on roads and rights-of-way drifted and damaged onion field. / General use products applied. No residue found but damage may be due tocarry over from earlier applications.ROWChelanPIlicense/postingCommercial5/25/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicidephenoxynone NOC posting/licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA observed an application being made to landscaping without a license on the vehicle. No posting done. / VerifiedCommercialPage 3 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataGrantPIdrift to ornamentalsCommercial5/20/2005same day2noaerialAgHerbicide Herbicidebentazone imazamaxnone NOC peas/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Aerial application drifted to ornamentals. / Sample was positive for product in a recent application but may be from carry over.CommercialChelanPIdrift to housePrivate Applicator6/1/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticide Insecticidespinosad tebuconazolenone Verbal Warning cherries/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to cherry orchard drifting towards complainant's house. Smelled product. / Verified. Residues on vegetation by house.airblastDouglasPIdrift to housesPrivate Applicator5/31/2005one day2noGroundAgInsecticidespinosadnone NOC apples/housesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application from two airblast sprayers was observed driftingtowards houses in strong winds. / Verified. Residue found.airblastChelanPIhuman exposure-driftCommercial6/2/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone Verbal Warning parking lot/busOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Bus driver said he inhaled pesticide through open window when at intersection. / Applicator said he applied glyphosate. Detectable quantities found next toapplication site but not on bus or driver.CommercialChelanPIdrift tograpesunknown6/1/2005same day1nounknownAgHerbicidephenoxynone NAI grapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide damage to grapes. / Unknown source, no record of leaf indexing for timing. No source found.unknownPage 4 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataChelanPNIdirect sprayto school busPrivate Applicator6/5/2005same day0noGroundAgN ANAnone NAI cherries/school busOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Airblast sprayer drenched windshield of school bus while spraying cherries. / Sprayers were applying water and vapor guard to dry off cherries. Nopesticides involved. Advised grower it would be good to employ spotter to avoid spaying vehicles.airblastGrantPIhuman exposureNA6/9/2005same day3nounknownAgInsecticideorganophosphateDOH NAI personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Irrigation district employee hospitalized. Symptoms of OP poisoning. / Apparent gradual poisoning from exposure while delivering water to growers. Twoweek exposure and feeling ill. New person provided withPPE, growers cooperating in providing notification.CommercialChelanPIdrift to homesPrivate Applicator6/13/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticidecarbarylnone NOC cherries/housesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA investigator observed drift of pesticide towards adjoining homes. / Residue found on neighboring day care and residence.airblastDouglasPIhuman exposure-driftPrivate Applicator6/23/2005same day1noGroundAgInsecticide InsecticideInsecticidethiomethoxam bifenzate oilDOH NAI pears/personsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Two persons felt spray on face and arms while neighbor sprayingpears with airblast sprayer. / No residue found off target. No evidence of drift.airblastChelanPImisuseCommercial6/28/2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicidephenoxyDOH NAI weeds/person, waterOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Said county made him control weeds and he and dog became ill from pesticides. Original complaint was pesticides being sprayed by commercial applicator increek area. / No evidence of pesticidessprayed near creek. No evidence of personor dog ill. County did not mandate use of pesticides.ResidentialPage 5 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataGrantPIhuman exposure -driftPrivate Applicator6/28/2005same day4noGroundAgInsecticide Insecticideazinphos-methyl carbarylDOH NOI apples/personsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Two apple thinners hospitalized after neighboring orchard applicationdrifted on them. / Verified. Workers went to health clinic with nausea and respiratorysymptoms. Numerous WPS violations also.airblastGrantPNIdrift to cropCommercialJun-05same day1noAirAgN ANAnone NAI potatoes/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide drift from aerial application to nearby potato fields./ Trees showing sulfonylurea damage but appears to be from previous years. Not due to potatoapplication drift - other causes.CommercialChelanPIlicenseUnlicensed7/11/2005same day1noGroundNon AgN ANAnone NOC licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Commercial application being made without a commercial license./ Verified. Person had onlya Private Applicator's license.CommercialClarkPIhuman exposure-notificationCommercial7/13/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicide2,4-D MCPP dicambaDOH NAI school grounds/personsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C029SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Two persons ill from spraying done on school grounds. Had asked tobe notified. / School had asked applicator to notify and he did not see notice. Noresidue detected on complainant's property. No exposure verified. No requirement to notify. Forms provided to complainant for Pesticide Sensitive Register.Comm to schoolChelanPIhuman exposure-driftPrivate Applicator7/20/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticide Insecticideacetamiprid fenpyroximatenone NOC pears/carOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C030SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift of smelly substance on his car on two occasions during night drive. / Verified drift on car. Residue found inside and outside vehicle.airblastPage 6 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataGrantPIhuman exposure-driftCommercial7/11/2005same day3noaerialAgInsecticide Fungicidethiomethoxam mancozebDOH NOC potatoes/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C031SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift from aerial application to potatoes resulted in possible human exposure. / Residue found off target. Human exposure notproven but probable.CommercialGrantPIdrift to cropunknown6/10/2005four days2nounknownAgHerbicidephenoxynone NAI grapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C032SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Growers noticed 2,4-D symptoms in vineyard. /Symptoms observed, grower withdrew complaint.unknownChelanPNIlicensesPrivate Applicator8/1/2005same day0noGroundAgN ANAnone NAI apples/licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C033SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Complainant stated orchards being sprayed by non-licensed commercial applicators. / Applicators had leased land and were working under PA license.CommercialGrantPNIdrift to cropCommercial8/3/2006same day0noaerialAgN ANAnone NAI applesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C034SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Suspects aerial application to potatoes ormint drifted to his apple orchard. Damaged trees and fruit. / Damage due to application of micronutrients and urea,not drift from pesticides.AirDouglasPIdrift to carsPrivate Applicator8/2&3/05same day2noGroundAgInsecticideAzinphos-methylnone NOI apples/carsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C035SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor drifted pesticides to his residence and parked cars whilespraying apples. / WSDA detected residue on property, garage and vehicle.airblastPage 7 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataGrantPNIdrift to cropNA7/5/2005same day0noN AAgN ANAWSU NAI cherriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C036SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Red spotting on cherry leaves and trees defoliating rapidly. Suspects desiccant drift from potato field. / Damage due to disease, bacteria or fungi.NADouglasPIdrift off targetPrivate Applicator8/24/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticideAzinphos-methylnone NOC apples/roadOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C037SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA observed drift from airblast application to apples. Deniedentry to conduct WPS and Use inspections. / Warrants obtained. Application contrary tolabel, recordkeeping and WPS violations.airblastDouglasPIdrift off targetPrivate Applicator8/31/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticide Fungicideacetamiprid thiramnone NOC apples/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C038SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA observed drift from application to orchard. Plume driftingtowards housing development. Grower denied entry to orchard forsampling. / Verified.Residue off target.airblastDouglasPNIunsecured containersPrivate Applicator8/31/2005same day0noN AAgN ANAnone NAI containersOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C039SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Pesticide containers left by mix/load site and unsecured. /Visited site. Only container seen was properly secured.NAChelanPNIdrift on carPrivate Applicator9/8/2005one day0noGroundAgN ANAnone NAI apples/carsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C040SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Complainant's car was drifted on by airblast application to apples. / Product applied was calcium, not a pesticide. Advised to be more careful in future.airblastPage 8 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataChelanPNIdisposal of containersPrivate Applicator9/19/2005same day1noN AAgN ANADOE NAI containersOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#C041SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Disposal of pesticide containers in burn pile. / Containers removed before pile burned.NAGrantPNIno chemigation recordsCommercialongoingsame Day2noNAAgN ANAnone NOC RecordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#G001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Have not received chemigation records for a number of years. / VerifiedNAGrantPIhuman exposure-driftPublic Operator9/5/2005same Day2noGroundNon AgInsecticidenaledDOH NOC mosquitoes/peopleOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#G002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Three people exposed to mosquito fogging insecticide. / Verified. People had symptoms but did not see a doctor.Comm - mosq fogGrantPIdrift to cropCommercial9/5/2005three days3noaerialAgDesiccantglufosinate-ammoniumFood Safety NOI potatoes/applesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#G003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Potato desiccant drift to apples. / Two orchards involved,drift verified on one- not the other. No residue on fruit. Economic damage undetermined.AirGrantPIhuman exposure- directCommercial8/31/2005three days3noGroundNon AgInsecticidebifenthrinDOH NOC spiders/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#G004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Spider control spray onto building drifted into dining room ofnursing home. Staff person wiped upliquid with bare hands, suffered respiratory problems andlost three days work. / Verified.CommercialPage 9 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataGrantPIanimal exposure - directCommercial10/7/2005one day4nochemigationAgFumigantmetam-sodiumVet NOI potatoes/applesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#G005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Metam-sodium overspray onto pasture and trees. One horse ill. /Sprayed with end gun. Field man did not know how to shut off.Horse partially recovered.ChemigationSpokanePNIdraininghot tub killed treesNAunknownsame day0noNANon AgN ANAnone NAI TreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Claims draining of hot tub may have caused trees to die. /Hot tub had not been used for many years. No pesticides detected.Cause of tree deaths unknown.ResidentialWhitmanPIdrift to cropsCommercial4/8/2005same day1noAirAgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NAI wheat/nursery cropsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide drift to nursery plants from application to wheat./ No evidence observed drift occurred. No residues detected.CommercialWhitmanPIspill ofpesticide-treatedgrainNA3/31/200510 days0noSpillAgN ANAnone NAI spilled grainOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Large-scale spill of pesticide-treated grain within city limits./ Referral from DOE. Attemptsto contact complainant were not successful. Traveled to city, nograin was seen. Complainant was eventually contacted butdid not meet with WSDA. Could not verify complaint.NASpokanePNIWDOSPI11/7/2004same day2noWDONon AgN ANAnone NOI WDO termitesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Missed termite infestation during WDO/SPI inspection. / Verified.NAPage 10 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataSpokanePNIlicenseCommercial4/13/2005same day0noNANon AgN ANAnone NAI unlicensed spray truckOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Commercial spray truck without markings, alleged to beunlicensed. / Truck properly marked and licenses OK.CommercialWalla WallaPIbird deaths - misuseCommercial4/7/2005one day1noGroundNon AgRodenticideunknownDOE NAI gophers/birdsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Anonymous complaint to DOE that many birds were dying afterrodenticide application to school grounds. / Custodian reportedone bird (crow) acting funny.No dead or dying birds observed. Crow not found. No children present (spring break).CommercialAdamsPNIlicenseUnlicensedongoingsame day1noNANon AgN ANAnone NOC LicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Commercial business operating without insurance or license. / Verified.CommercialAdamsPIdrift to cropsCommercial4/7/2005same day4noaerialAgHerbicideglyphosatenone Advisory Letter fallow/wheatOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Aerial application to fallow ground damaged wheat. / Verified. Damage over $1000.CommercialAdamsPIdrift to cropsCommercial4/7/2005same day4noaerialAgHerbicideglyphosatenone Advisory Letter fallow/wheatOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Aerial application to fallow ground damaged wheat. / Verified. Damage over $1000.CommercialPage 11 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataSpokanePNIWDOSPI2/18/2005same day1noNANon AgN ANAnone Verbal Warning termitesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Structural pest inspector missed termite infestation. / Small infestation very difficult to see. Verbal warning about subtleindicators.WDO/SPISpokanePIhuman exposure -driftCommercial4/24/1998same day1noAirAgHerbicide Herbicidethifensulfuron-methyl bromoxynilDOH NAI wheat/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Driving open vehicle and exposed to pesticide drift. / Residue from car did not match application. Person imprecise about location of incident.CommercialSpokanePIdirect damageCommercial4/29/2005same day4noGroundNon AgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NOI ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Contaminated tree and shrub application damaged landscape plants. / Verified. Commercial applicator accidentally had herbicide in insecticide/fungicidemix. Damage over $16,000. Twenty-three customers affected.CommercialSpokanePImisusePublic Operator5/6/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicide2,4-Dnone NAI weeds/wetlandsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Misapplication to wetland. / No evidenceapplied to water. Label allows near water.Public OperatorPend OreillePIdrift to ornamentalsCommercial5/9/2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicide2,4-Dnone NOC pasture/greenhouseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide drift to ornamental greenhouse from pasture application. / Detection found half way to greenhouse. No symptoms seenat green house.CommercialPage 12 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataE WAPNIlicenseCommercialongoingsame day1noN AAgN ANAnone NOC? licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Operating without a licensed person on site, no insurance. / License current at the time.NASpokanePIdirect damageCommercial3/1/2005same day1noGroundNon AgInsecticidedormant oilWSU NAI treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Dormant oil spray applied to trees killing them. / No evidence oil spray harmed trees. Cause unknown.CommercialSpokanePNIdrift to ornamentalsUnlicensed5/15/2005same day1noGroundNon AgN ANAnone NAI OrnamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor's application of herbicides damaged ornamentals. /Injury caused by insects. No drift damage seen on ornamentals.ResidentialSpokanePIhuman exposure-driftPublic Operator5/11/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicidedicambaDOH NAI ROW/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Person ill from drift of pesticide.Went to emergency room. / No evidence drift occurred. Doctor report said exposure unlikely. Product has strong smell.ROWSpokanePInotificationCommercial5/25/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicide2.4-DNA NOC Lawn/notificationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Person not notified before landscape application./ Verified. Person on pesticide sensitive list.Commercial ROWPage 13 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataSpokanePIdrift to cropsPublic OperatorSpring 2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicide Herbicide2,4-D picloramnone NAI ROW/lentilsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift from ROW to lentil field damaged crop. /No evidence of drift. Damage may be due to flooding.ROWLincolnPIdirect damageCommercialMay-05same day4noGroundAgHerbicide Herbicidemetsulfuron-methyl MCPAnone NOI wheatOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide application to winter wheat damaged crop. /Verified. Contrary to label - wheat past jointing stage.CommercialWhitmanPIdrift to cropsCommercial5/23/2005same day4noAirAgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NAI wheat/peasOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Aerial application to wheat damaged peas. / Could not determine source of damage. Numerous applications in area.CommercialSpokanePIdrift to ornamentalsCommercial6/15/2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicidephenoxynone NAI pasture/ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Complaint about odor, and that application to a pasture drifted toornamentals. / No symptoms on property or nearby after oneweek. Complainant droppedcase.CommercialWhitmanPNIconcern about applicationNAJun-05same day0noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI Apartment houseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Concerned that apartment manager was going to apply pesticides and affect health. / No products applied as yet. Will do spotspray only.ResidentialPage 14 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataLincolnPIdrift topropertyCommercialSpring 2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NAI wheat/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift to adjacent property. / No residue found, no damage symptoms.AgricultureAdamsPIdrift to vineyardunknownspring 2005same day3nounknownAgHerbicidephenoxynone NAI vineyardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide drift to vineyard. / Did not record development data so could not determine date and therefore source.AgricultureLincolnPIdrift to vineyardunknownSummer 20same day2nounknownAgN ANAnone NAI unknown/vineyardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide drift to vineyard. / Did not record development data so could not determine date and therefore source.AgricultureSpokanePIdirect - misuseCommercial7/1/2005same day4noGroundNon AgHerbicide HerbicideHerbicidediuron 2,4-D glyphosatenone NOI ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to ornamentals damaged them. / Verified. Commercialapplicator applied herbicidescontrary to label. Damage around $1000CommercialSpokanePIdirect - misuseCommercial7/1/2005same day4noGroundNon AgHerbicidediuronnone NOI ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S029SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to ornamentals damaged them. / Verified. Commercialapplicator applied herbicidescontrary to label. Damage around $8000CommercialPage 15 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataSpokanePIdirect - misuseUnlicensed7/18/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone Verbal Warning Lawn/notificationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S030SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor's application damaged his lawn along shared fence line./ Verified. About three inch wide strip of grass damaged along fence line. Verbal warningto be careful.ResidentialSpokanePIdirect-misuseunknown7/1/2005same day4nounknownNon AgHerbicideMiscellaneousnone NAI TreesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S031SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Trees along river by condominiums dying. / Nine trees had holes drilled in them and herbicides detected. Could not determinesource.ResidentialSpokanePNIdirectUnknown6/6/2005same day0noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI TreeOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S032SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Horse chestnut tree damaged by June insecticide application. / Damage due to leaf blotch and powdery mildew.GroundLincolnPIdrift to cropsCommercial6/7/2005same day3noGroundAgInsecticidethiocarbamatenone NAI potatoes/wheatOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S033SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to potato field drifted and damaged wheat. / Damage not noticed until harvest. No evidence could be obtained. Most of field harvested.CommercialSpokanePNIdirect - misuseNA8/5/2005same day0noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI Lawn/notificationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S034SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbors damaged lawn while on vacation. / Damage due to cultural practices. Drought.ResidentialPage 16 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataAsotinPIdrift - treesPublic OperatorSpring 2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicidesdiuron glyphosatenone NOC ROW /treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S035SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005DOT damaged trees with ROW applications. / Residue detected fromplants. Probably drift of diuron, glyphosate - source undetermined.ROWWhitmanPIdirect - misuseunknown7/5/2005same day3noGroundNon AgHerbicidesMiscellaneousSheriff referred propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S036SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Alleges former students sprayed pesticide mixture onto lawns, plants, etc. Sheriff investigating. / Verified. Deliberate. Turned over to Sheriff.ResidentialAdamsPIdrift to cropsunknown8/5/2005one day0nounknownAgHerbicideunknownnone NAI potatoesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S037SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift to potato field. / Complainant failed to provide requested information. Case closed.unknownSpokanePIdrift - treesPublic Operatorbefore 2005same day4noGroundNon AgHerbicidesbromacil diuronnone NOI ROW/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S038SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application along road damaged trees. / Verified. Off- label use -near the roots of desirable trees.ROWAdamsPIineffective applicationunknown2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicideunknownnone NAI weedsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S039SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to kochia ineffective. / Case closed - no further information provided by complainant.unknownPage 17 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataFranklinPIdistribution/unregisteredUnlicensed3/21/2005same day1noNANon AgSurfactantSurfactantnone NAI DistributionOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#S040SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Distribution of unregistered surfactant. / Not verified. Product substituted for registered product.DistributionMultiplePIdistributionDealer1/28/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone Advisory Letter sale of unregistered productsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Chemical company offered for sale unregistered products. Complainant asked for definition of distribution. / Process for state contract bidding was clarifiedand agencies will be clear that only registered products can beon state contracts.CommercialKingPNIfaultySPI and reportSPI9/18/2004same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC faulty inspection and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thoroughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did not diagram.CommercialThurstonPNIlicenseUnlicensed2/2/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC advertising w/o licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Advertising as a licensed structural pest inspector without a license. / Verified.CommercialKingPNIincomplete WDO reportSPI2/7/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC report not providedOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failed to provide WDO records on request. / VerifiedCommercialPage 18 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPNIlicenseUnlicensed2/25/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC advertising w/o licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Advertising as a licensed structural pest inspector without a license. / Verified.CommercialPiercePNIdisposalCommercial2/17/2005same day0noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI dumping pesticidesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Commercial company dumping pesticides on property. /Not verified. No evidence to substantiate complaint.CommercialMultiplePIdistributionDealer1/28/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone Advisory Letter sale of unregistered productsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Chemical company offered for sale unregistered products. Complainant asked for definition of distribution. / Process for state contract bidding was clarifiedand agencies will be clear that only registered products can beon state contracts.CommercialThurstonPIimproper PPEUnlicensed3/7/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NOC observed improper PPEOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA observed application to landscape without proper PPE. /Company not licensed to make applications, no insurance, failedto keep records, did notpost and used pesticides inconsistent with label.CommercialSnohomishPIdrift topropertyUnlicensed3/9/2005same day0yesGroundNon AgHerbicidesglyphosateDOH NAI weeds/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor's application drifting and damaging her plants. Thinksmay affect child's health. / No evidence of any drift. Withdrew comment about healthproblems.ResidentialPage 19 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataThurstonPIrecordsUnlicensed3/23/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NOC recordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA observed application to landscape without proper PPE. /Company not licensed to make applications, no insurance, failedto keep records, did notpost and used pesticides inconsistent with label. Records on applications not sent in. (Same as case T008)CommercialKingPNIWDO recordsSPI3/16/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOI failed to provide recordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failed to provide WDO records on second request.CommercialClarkPIdirectCommercial3/21/2005five days0noGroundAgFungicideCoppernone NAI application damaged plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Copper spray to apples drifted to nursery plants anddamaged them. / Damage due to bacterial disease.CommercialPiercePIuse inspection deficiencies,WPSPrivate Applicator4/19/2005same day2noGroundAgMiscellaneousMiscellaneousnone NOI use inspection deficienciesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Follow-up use inspection at farm previously issued an NOC found application without direct supervision, faulty, careless, negligent, false information toWSDA, no WPS training, WPS problems.AgricultureClallamPIsale of no registeredpesticidesUnlicensed11/16/2004same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC sale of unregistered productsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Sale of unregistered 25(b) products. / Verified.CommercialPage 20 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPIhuman exposure - driftCommercial4/19/2005same day2noGroundNon AgInsecticidepermethrinDOH NOC landscape/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Landscape application drifted and entered her property. Felt on arm and had headache. / No evidence that pesticide application contacted person.Numerous other application deficiencies.CommercialThurstonPIdrift topropertyUnlicensed4/17/2005same day2noGroundNon AgInsecticideunknownnone NOC weeds/plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Ortho wasp and bee killer used along fence and damaged her plants./ Unknown which product used, several labels of similar types. Some require rinse offof desirable plants. Probably solvent damage.ResidentialKingPImisuseUnlicensed3/1/2005same day4noGroundNon AgHerbicidesMiscellaneousPolice NOC treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Several neighbors reported trees damaged . Alleged to be blockingview. / Verified. One person apparently cut plants and/orapplied pesticides to trees andshrubs.ResidentialIslandPImisuseUnlicensed4/15/2005same day2nounknownNon AgHerbicidesphenoxynone NAI plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Said neighbor damaged her trees with herbicide. / Symptoms seen on plants on fence line, no source found.ResidentialSkagitPIhuman exposure- driftUnlicensed4/28/2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicideglyphosatenone NAI pasture/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor sprayed pasture and spray contacted her arm. / No residue on cast (one arm) and no injury noted to complainant's yard.AgriculturePage 21 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataSkagitPNIfaultySPI and reportSPI6/21/1999same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Faulty SPI and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct throughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs anddid not diagram.CommercialSkagitPIlicenseUnlicensed3/22/2005same day1noGroundNon AgInsecticidecyfluthrinnone NOC Unlicensed applicatorOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Applied pesticide commercially to control ants without a license. / Verified. Did not keep records.CommercialSnohomishPIdogdeathCommercial4/27/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicide Insecticidephenoxy potassium saltsState Vet NOC dog deathOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Puppy died after application made to lawn. / Vet report did not attribute death to pesticides. Puppy not in good health. No evidence of any pesticides offtarget. Numerous operating and licensing violations.CommercialSkagitPIdrift toplantsPrivate Applicator5/1/2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicideclomazonenone Advisory Letter cucumbers/ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift from application to ornamentals. / No residue found butsymptoms consistent with clomazone. May have been residue leftin tank.CommercialSkagitPImisuseunknown4/15/2005same day3noGroundNon AgHerbicidephenoxynone NAI treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Trees damages from herbicide spray. / Verified.Trees allegedly blocking view. Could not find source.ResidentialPage 22 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPNIrecords requestPrivate Comm Ap6/1/2005same day1noNANon AgN ANAnone NOC recordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA requested records from 4 applicators. / No records received.Commercial SPIGrays HarborPIhuman exposure -driftPrivate Applicator6/1/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticidechlorpyridazinDOH NOC ornamentals/personsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WSDA Sudden Oak Death inspectors contacted spray when doing green house inspections. / Applications made properly with WPS precautions. WSDAemployees were on site without escort. NOC on recordkeeping violations.CommercialKingPImisuseUnlicensed5/15/2005four days3noUnknownNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone NAI ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor applied herbicide to plants on property line without permission. / Glyphosate damage on plants. Property line dispute. No source found.Residential SPIClarkPNIfaultySPI and reportSPI11/11/2004same day2noNANon AgN ANAnone NOC faulty inspection and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thoroughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did not diagram.SPI licenseKingPIdirect toplantsUnlicensed5/22/2005same day3noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone NOC plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T029SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor made application to her backyard without permission and damaged plants. / Verified.ResidentialPage 23 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPIlicenseUnlicensed6/1/2005same day1noNANon AgN ANAnone NOC licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T030SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application records request showed 4 people making commercial applications without license.Commercial WDOPiercePImisuseNA4/15/2005same day0noNANon AgN ANAnone NAI damaged plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T031SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Said neighbors sprayed plants on her property. / Some evidence of herbicide damage seen. No source found.Residential SPIKingPImisuseunknown5/15/2005same day2noUnknownNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone NAI damaged plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T032SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Said neighbor spayed her plants and damaged them. / Residue found of glyphosate. Neighbor dispute. No source found.ResidentialSpokanePNISPI reportSPI6/26/2005same day1noNANon AgN ANAnone NOC Failure to provide reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T033SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failure to provide SPI report upon request.Commercial SPIClarkPNISPI reportSPI6/17/2005same day1noNANon AgN ANAnone NOC Failure to provide reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T034SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failure to provide SPI report upon request.Commercial WDOPage 24 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPIhuman exposure-driftunknown5/26/2005one day0nounknownNon AgunknownunknownDOH NAI lawn/persons, deckOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T035SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005DOH referred a call about a possible drift from a Commercial lawnapplication on two people sittingon a deck at their house./ WSDA tried to contactcomplainants without results. No calls returned.Commercial SPIKingPImisuseunknown5/28/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone NAI grassOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T036SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Said neighbor used herbicide on her property without permission./ Glyphosate residue detected. Minor plant damage. No sourcedetermined.ResidentialPiercePNIfaultySPI and reportSPI9/13/2004same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Faulty SPI and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T037SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thoroughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did not diagram.SPIMasonPInotificationPrivate Commercial Ap6/15/2005same day1noGroundNon AgInsecticide Fungicidethiram polyoxinnone NOC notificationOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T038SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failed to notify. On pesticide sensitive list. / Verified. Golf course application. Failure to keep records.Commercial LandscapeSpokanePNIfaultySPI and reportSPI10/13/2004same day0noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI Failure to note termitesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T039SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failed to note presence of termites. / Insufficient evidence to determine termites were present at time of inspection.Residential SPIPage 25 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPNIlicenseUnlicensed8/24/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC SPI licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T040SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Unlicensed SPI inspector. / Verified. Also failure to keep records.Commercial SPIKingPNIfailure to submit SPI reportSPI8/10/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC failure to submit SPI reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T041SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failure to submit SPI report on request. / VerifiedROWClarkPIrecordsCommercial6/6/2005same day1noGroundNon AgInsecticidepermethrinnone NOC ants/ reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T042SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Complainant had concerns regarding treatment for carpenter ants. / Failed to keep complete records.Residential WDOSan JuanPNIlicenseUnlicensed6/8/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Doing SPI without licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T043SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Doing SPI inspections without being licensed. / Verified. Also no insurance and incomplete records.Commercial SPICowlitzPImisuseUnlicensedunknownsame day1noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone Verbal Warning treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T044SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005States neighbor using herbicide on property line cedar trees. / Neighbor did use glyphosate. Trees have minor damage. Neighbor neighbor dispute.ResidentialPage 26 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataThurstonPNIfaultySPI and reportSPI2/28/2005same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Faulty SPI and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T045SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thoroughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did not diagram.SPISnohomishPIlicenseunlicensed7/1/2005same day1noGroundNon AgInsecticidepyrethrinsnone NOC fleas/LicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T046SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005WDO treatment overused insecticide for fleas when doing rodent control. Concern re: license. / Verified. No Commercial Applicator license, no insurance.Did not maintain records.Commercial WDOKingPNIfailure to submit SPI recordsSPI8/15/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOI failure to submit SPI recordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T047SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failure to submit SPI records on second request. / Verified.Commercial SPIPiercePNIlicenseunknown3/5/2005same day0noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI LicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T048SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failure to have license and keep application records. / Not verified, lack of evidence.CommercialKingPNIfaultySPI and reportSPI5/14/2005same day0noN ANon AgN ANAnone NAI Failed to notice moldOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T049SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failed to notice mold during SPI inspection. / Report stated attic area was excluded from inspection.Commercial SPIPage 27 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataPiercePImisuseCommercial8/1/200510 days1noGroundNon AgHerbicide HerbicideHerbicideglyphosate simazine diuronnone NAI weeds/ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T050SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor directed commercial applicator to spray his property without permission. / Uncertain property boundary. Differencesresolved among parties.Commercial LandscapePiercePImisuseUnlicensed6/15/2005one day1noGroundNon AgHerbicidephenoxynone NAI blackberriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T051SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor sprayed his property without permission. / Symptomsseen on blackberries, no residue detected. No proof - neighbor/neighbor dispute.ResidentialKingPNImisuseNA9/21/2005one day0noNANon AgN ANAnone NAI roads and sidewalksOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T052SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Company making application of chemicals to Pike Place Market roadsand sidewalk areas. / Sanitation company pumping grease from local businesses.Commercial WDOCowlitzPIdrift on organicgrapesPublic Operator7/12/2005same day1noGroundROWHerbicide Herbicidetriclopyr 2,4-Dnone Verbal Warning ROW/grapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T053SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005DOT ROW spray damaged grape vines. / Symptoms seen, residue not detected.ROWCowlitzPImisuseUnlicensed6/15/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicidetriclopyr 2,4-Dnone NAI BlackberriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T054SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor sprayed blackberries without permission. / Blackberries showed symptomsand residue. On easement road, neighbor neighbor dispute - resolvingin court.WDOPage 28 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPIpurchase of RUP w/o licenseDealer10/2/2003same day1noN ANon AgInsecticidechlorpyrifosnone NOI purchase of RUP w/o licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T055SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Purchase of RUP without license. / Verified. Dealer sold to unlicensed persons and did not keep distribution records.CommercialKitsapPImisuseUnlicensed7/19/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicidecopper napthanatenone NOC roof/plantsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T056SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Concerned that roof application harming plants, getting into water. / Commercial application to roof made by unlicensed applicator. Roof treatment came intocontact with plants. Water contact not verified.CommercialGrays HarborPNIfaultySPI and reportSPI10/15/2004same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOI Faulty SPI and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T057SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thoroughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did not diagram.Commercial SPIClarkPIdistributionUnlicensed10/4/2004same day1noN AAgFungicideethoxyquin copperEPA NOC unregistered pesticideOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T058SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Box of unregistered fruit wrap paper brought to Yakima WSDA office. / Pear wrap paper being distributed in WA without EPA orstate registration.Commercial WDOPiercePNIfaultySPI and reportSPI10/19/2005same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Faulty SPI and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T059SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thoroughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did not diagram.Commercial WDOPage 29 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKingPImisuseUnlicensed10/31/2005same day2noGroundNon AgFungicidecopper napthanatenone NOC woodOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T060SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Wood preservative used inside house by unlicensed applicator./ Verified. Product only for outside use. No commercial license.Commercial SPIMasonPNImisusePrivate Applicator6/1/2005same day1noNAAgN ANAnone NOC Christmas treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T061SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Christmas tree growers using DDT and agent orange. / Unfounded allegations, NOC on storage and records.ExamMasonPIlicenseUnlicensed11/29/2005same day1noN AAgN ANAEPA NOC Christmas treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T062SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005During inspection of Christmas tree farm, found owner had obtainednon-registered pesticide from PUD, PUD not licensed as dealer, records not kept.CommercialClarkPIdistributionUnlicensed2004/2005same day1noN AAgFungicideethoxyquin copperEPA NOC unregistered pesticideOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T063SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Unregistered fungicide paper being distributed. / Verified. Same case as T058CommercialSnohomishPNIlicenseUnlicensed4/26/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Doing WDO w/o licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T064SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Performing Structural pest inspections without license. / VerifiedCommercial WDOPage 30 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKitsapPNIlicenseUnlicensed10/9/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Doing WDO w/o licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T065SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Performing Structural pest inspections without license. / VerifiedCommercial WDOKitsapPNIlicenseUnlicensed11/26/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Doing WDO w/o licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T066SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Performing Structural pest inspections without license. / VerifiedAgriculture WDOWestern WAPIdistributionUnlicensed11/29/2005one day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Distribution. LicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T067SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Commercial company distributing unregistered pesticides by non-licensed dealer outlet. Records, storage and misbranding violations.CommercialDuplicate-see T71Other AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T068SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Duplicated number - same case as T71.CommercialPiercePNIfaultySPI and reportSPI9/13/2005same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOI Faulty SPI and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T069SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified. Failed to conduct thoroughinspection, failed to report evidence and conditions of WDOs and did not diagram.SPIPage 31 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataPiercePNIfailure toprovide recordsSPI12/20/2005same day1noN ANon AgN ANAnone Advisory Letter recordsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T070SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Failure to provide WDO records.WDOWestern WAPNIunlicensed applicatorUnlicensed12/5/06one day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC LicenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T071SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Unlicensed commercial applicator. / Verified, Cannot locate infractor.CommercialSkagitPNIfaultySPI and reportSPI7/6/2005same day2noN ANon AgN ANAnone NOC Faulty SPI and reportOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#T072SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Faulty SPI and report. / Verified, Failed to note WDOs, unlicensed, no control number on report.Commercial SPIFranklinPNIexam fraudNA1/11/2005same day0noNANon AgN ANAnone NAI photographing examOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y001SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Simplot employee observed two people photographing what he thought was WSDA exam with cell phone. / Persons were photographing WSU sampleexam questions, not real exam.ExamYakimaPIlicenseUnlicensed2004/2005same day2noNANon AgN ANAnone NOI licenseOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y002SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Applications by unlicensed person. / Verified, warrants needed to get records, numerous recordkeeping and misuse issues.CommercialPage 32 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataYakimaPIhuman,animal exposure -driftPrivate Applicator3/20/2005same day4noGroundAgInsecticideChlorpyrifos oilnone NOI orchard/person, animalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y003SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to orchard drifted to person, cattle, dog and cats./ Person became ill. Dr. thought possible OP poisoning. Residue detected off target.ResidentialBentonPIsaleDealer3/23/2005same day1noNANon AgHerbicide2,4-Dnone NOC sale to unlicensedOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y004SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Selling 2,4-D in 2.5 gallon containers without checking on license. / Verified. Unaware of recordkeeping requirements.CommercialFranklinPIsaleDealer3/23/2005same day1noNANon AgHerbicide2,4-Dnone NOC sale to unlicensedOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y005SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Selling 2,4-D in 2.5 gallon containers without checking on license. / Verified. Unaware of recordkeeping requirements.CommercialWalla WallaPIdrift to cropPrivate Ap / Public Operatorspring 2005same day1noGroundAgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NOC ROW, wheat/onionsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y006SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Complainant said product drifted to his onions from either application to wheat or to ROW. / All samples tested negative. Application records from farmerwere incomplete.ROWBentonPIhuman exposure - driftPrivate Applicator4/25/2005same day3yesGroundAgInsecticide InsecticideInsecticidemyclobutanil spinosad CarbarylDOH NOC cherries/school busOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y007SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005School bus driver said bus with children on board was drifted onfrom application to orchard. Driver has possible symptoms, children did not. / Bus waswashed, DOH did not investigate, no symptoms substantiated. No symptoms for children. NOC because of testimony.AgriculturePage 33 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataYakimaPIdrift topropertyCommercial5/13/2005same day2noGroundNon AgInsecticidecyhalothrinnone NOCs landscape/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y008SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Landscape applicator drifted on motor home, shed and plants. / Verified. Improper supervision, records problem.WDOFranklinPIhuman exposure - driftCommercial5/19/2005same day4noGroundAgHerbicide Herbicideatrazine alachlorDOH NOI corn/personsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y009SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to corn drifted on 15 people at greenhouse operation. Several felt ill and one went to the hospital. / Verified.Wind blowing towards greenhouse.Health symptoms short term.ResidentialBentonPIdrift to cropunknown5/20/2005same day4nounknownAgHerbicidephenoxysnone NAI grapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y010SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift of 2,4-D to vineyard. / Verified. Damage extensive but no source proven.ROWFranklinPIdrift to treesPublic Operator5/28/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicidesMiscellaneousnone NOC treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y011SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Homeowner claimed application to church property damaged trees./ No residue detected from trees. Several applications in area. Public Operator at onesite made an off-label application. NOC issued for this.ResidentialYakimaPNIlicenseCommercial6/13/2005same day0noNANon AgN ANAnone NAI unlicensed applicatorOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y012SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Unlicensed commercial applicator. / Company sold. Properly licensed and insured.CommercialPage 34 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataWalla WallaPIdirect to cropCommercial4/13/2005same day1noAirAgHerbicide Herbicidedicamba MCPAnone NAI wheatOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y013SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Contaminated product applied to wheat damaged crop. / No residue of glyphosate found in samples. Pennsylvania lab reported low level of glyphosate.Unresolved.CommercialKlickitatPIhuman exposure - directUnlicensed3/16/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosateDOH/Police NAI weeds/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y014SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Person said applicator sprayed her in facewhen she tried to get her dog away. / No evidence exposure occurred. Medical opinion symptoms due to flu, noinjury seen.ResidentialBentonPIdrift to cropCommercial6/15/2005same day2noAirAgHerbicidesmsclnone Advisory letters potatoes/cherriesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y015SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to potatoes drifted on cherries. /Verified. Could not determine which of two applicators.ResidentialYakimaPIdrift topropertyReferred6/22/2005same day2noGroundAgFungicidesulfurYakama Nation Referred hops/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y016SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to hops drifted on adjacent property. / Verified. Case referred to Yakama Nation ashop field is on reservation.Residues found.AgricultureBentonPIdrift to cropunknown5/20/2005same day3noUnknownAgHerbicidephenoxysnone NAI vineyardOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y017SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Phenoxy symptoms on 500 acres of vineyard. / Verified . No source determined.CommercialPage 35 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataYakimaPIdrift to ornamentalsPublic Operator6/5/2005same day2noGroundROWHerbicide Herbicide2.4-D glyphosateDOE NOC ROW/ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y018SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005ROW application along ditch damaged ornamentals. / Property line dispute. NOC on off label use.CommercialFranklinPIdrift topropertyCommercial7/1/2005same day2noAirAgInsecticide Insecticidemethamidiphos sulfurnone NOI potatoes/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y019SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Aerial application to potatoes drifted to cars, patio and garden./ Verified by residue. Nohealth complaints or crop damage.AgricultureYakimaPImisuseCommercial6/25/2005same day2noGroundNon AgInsecticideimidaclopridnone NOC EarwigsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y020SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Commercial application to control earwigs did not work. / Applicator treated for carpenter ants and rodents. No sign of either on premises. Treatment forearwigs not best chemical. Failed to keep and provide proper records.AgricultureOkanoganPIhuman exposure -driftUnlicensed6/27/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicidedichlobenilDOH NOC weeds/person, dogOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y021SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Next door neighbor used chemical over rate and made her and dogs ill. Also drifted on property. / No evidence of exposure topeople or animals (possibleodor). NOC - runoff from application on slope.AgricultureFranklinPIdrift to treesCommercialJun-05same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone NOCs ROW/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y022SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide damage to trees. / Glyphosate symptoms, no source found. NOCs on license and records.ResidentialPage 36 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataKittitasPIdrift to cropCommercial7/1/2005same day1noAirAgHerbicide Herbicide2,4-D dicambaFood Safety Advisory letter grass/potatoesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y023SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to Sudan grass drifted on potato fields./ Symptoms, no residue detected. No economic loss.AgricultureKlickitatPIdrift to cropUnlicensed7/6/2005same day3noNAAgHerbicideglyphosatenone NOI wine grapesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y024SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Herbicide injury to wine grapes. / Verified. Misapplication direct to crop in violation of label.ResidentialYakimaPIstorage/human exposure -odorCommercial7/5/2005same day1noNANon AgunknownUnknownDOH/DOE NAI odorOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y025SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Odor from where chemical spray company parkingtrucks making him ill. / No violations seen.CommercialBentonPImisuseUnlicensedSummer 20one day4noGroundNon AgHerbicidepicloramnone NOI weeds/treesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y026SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor used herbicide along fence line and trees dying. / Verified. Homeowner used RUP brought from brother's house. RUP and use off label. Notlicensed.AgricultureWalla WallaPIdrift togardenUnlicensed7/14/2005same day2noGroundNon AgHerbicidediquatSheriff NOC weeds/gardenOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y027SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor used herbicide and drifted or sprayed her garden. / Verified. Warrant needed to access property.ResidentialPage 37 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataBentonPIdrift topotatoesunknown5/18/2005same day0noUnknownAgunknownunknownnone NAI potatoesOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y028SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Drift to potatoes. / Complainant withdrew complaint.CommercialColumbiaPIhuman exposure -driftCommercial8/3/2005one day1noUnknownNon Agunknownunknownnone NAI house/personOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y029SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Felt ill from pesticide application to home across street. / Spoke to applicator and withdrew complaint.ResidentialYakimaPImisuseCommercial8/29/2005same day1noGroundNon AgHerbicideglyphosatenone NAI lawn/ornamentalsOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y030SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application made by commercial applicator to lawn damaged trees. / Residue found was herbicide used by complainant.ResidentialYakimaPIdrift topropertyPrivate Applicator8/11/2005same day2noGroundAgInsecticideazinphos methylnone NOC apples/propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y031SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to apples drift on property, cars. / Verified. Residue found off target. No health complaints.SPIYakimaPIdrift to daycarePrivate Applicator8/17/2005same day2yesGroundAgInsecticidefenpyroximatenone NOC hops/day care centerOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y032SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Application to hops drifted on day care center property. /Verified. Residue found. No health symptoms claimed by complainant.ResidentialPage 38 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedWSDA 2005 Case DataWalla WallaPNIdirect topropertyunknownunknownsame day0noNAAgN ANAEPA, Sheriff NAI propertyOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y033SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Homeowner said agricultural aircraft had leaking nozzles and flewover home and damaged trees. / No evidence of herbicide injury. Trees stressed fromdrought.CommercialKittitasPNImisuseUnlicensed5/27/2005same day0noGroundNon AgN ANADOE NAI fenceOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y034SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Using diesel fuel on fence. / Application not being used asa pesticide, no impact to environment or persons or property. Nojurisdiction.ResidentialYakimaPIdisposalPrivate Applicatorunknownsame day4noNAAgMiscellaneousMiscellaneousDOE NOI disposalOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y035SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Company improperly disposing of pesticides by burial. / Verified.ResidentialBentonPIdrift topastureUnknownAug-05two days1noUnknownNon AgHerbicideMiscellaneousnone NOC pastureOther AgenciesFinal ActionTarget/Complaint AreaCountyDesignationNature of CaseLicenseDateResponse timeCase#Y036SeverityChildren Involved?Application InfoChemicalsInvolved:2005Neighbor sprayed herbicide and drifted to property and damaged pasture. / Residues of several herbicides found. No source determined. NOCs on records.CommercialPage 39 of 39NAI = No Action Indicated NOC=Notice of Correction NOI=Noticeof Intent ROW=Right of Way WDO=Wood Destroying Organism RUP=Restricted Use PesticideOctober 23, 2006NA = Not Applicable SPI = Structural Pest Inspection PI = Pesticide Involved PNI = Pesticide Not InvolvedDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report163Washington State Departmentof Ecology, Spill ProgramDepartment of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeBenton548296,Kennewick5/12/2005,5/12/2005AirPesticideTransportation-Vehicle/TruckUnknownUnknownReferralPesticide spraydrift complaintwas referred toWSDA.550653,Kennewick9/10/2005,9/10/2005Roadway, pavedPesticide5-7 gallonsTransportationVehicle/TruckAccident-trafficContaminatedroadway/parking lotTelephone-technicalassistanceVehicle wasstruck byanother vehicle,rolled andleaked mixedDursban 50.City personnelcleaned up thearea, includinga contaminateddrywell.Chelan547923,Leavenworth5/3/2005,5/3/2005Surface water,freshPesticideConstructionsiteHumanfactorimproperproceduresUnknownTelephonetechnicalassistanceWorker sprayedRoundup onacreage withwetlands toplant soildraininggrasses. DOEdid not enforceaction, aswetland plantsand hydrologywould easilyDepartment of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativereturn.551200,Leavenworth10/11/200510/14/2005OtherHerbicideCommercialHumanfactorintentionalHumanReferral andrequestedinformationReceived 3complaintsabout drift,overspray andchemicalsensitivity.551285,Cashmere7/27/2005,7/27/2005SoilHerbicideDomesticHumanfactorimproperproceduresSoilContaminationReferralReferred toWSDA who saidit was OK forneighbor tospray.Clark547405,Vancouver4/12/2005,4/12/2005Soil,Roadway, pavedPesticide,5containersMotor vehiclecarAccident-trafficSoilContaminationReferral andTelephonetechnicalassistanceNo narrative550697,Vancouver9/20/2005,9/20/2005Roadway, pavedPesticide,10 gallonsOtherHumanfactorimproperproceduresContaminatedroadway/parking lotFieldresponse,technicalassistancePesticide spilledat intersection.Public Worksand Fire Dept.used sorbentmaterial andstreet sweeperto clean up spill.Columbia548469,Dayton5/26/2005,5/31/2005AirPesticideBurn,openHumanfactor,intentionalAir pollutionFieldresponse,investigationMan went tohospital withthroat irritationfrom pesticidecontainer burn.Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report164Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrative549765,Dayton8/4/2005,8/4/2005AirPesticideCommercialHumanfactorimproperproceduresAir pollutionTelephoneComplaint wasformallywithdrawn whenperson wascontacted.Cowlitz548347,Ariel5/24/2005,5/24/2005Surface water,freshHerbicide,1 quartPublic agencyOperatorerrorWater pollutionEmail,telephoneFish hatcherystaff spilled abottle ofherbicide ontoasphalt and intopond leadinginto LewisRiver. Anyproduct thatreached theriver would bevery dilute.549540,KalamaUnknown,7/25/2005Surface water,freshHerbicidePublic agencyHumanfactorintentionalWater pollutionEmailCase had noindication of anyspraying intowater. WSDAreqested sprayrecords fromcounty.Douglas550801,EastWenatcheeUnknown,9/16/2005SoilCommercialUnknownSoilContaminationNo follow upneededFerry547963,5/6/2005,Surface water,InsecticideHumanNaturalFieldBackpackDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report165Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual ReportDepartment of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeCurlew5/6/2005fresh, KettleRiverfactor,misconductresourcedamageresponse,investigationand referralspraying closeto, but not inwater. WSDAinvestigated.Grant549498,Moses Lake7/21/2005,7/21/2005AirPesticideCommercialHumanfactorimproperproceduresAir pollutionFieldresponse,investigationInvestigationresulted innotice ofcorrection toresponsibleparty.Grays Harbor546298,Montesano2/12/2005,2/12/2005166SoilHerbicide,40 gallonsFarm/agricultureHumanfactorimproperproceduresSoilcontaminationFieldresponse,technicalassistanceA neighborreported tworusted andleaking drumsof “dinoseb” onadjacentproperty.Responderspackaged andsecured thedrums. Acontractorremovedmaterials fromthe site.Island548362,WhidbeyIsland5/25/2005,5/25/2005Surface water,fresh/wetlandDomesticHumanfactorintentionalNaturalresourcedamageNo follow upneededDepartment of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeOkanogan546410,Tonasket7/23/2004,2/18/2005AirPesticideFarm/agricultureHumanfactorimproperproceduresAir pollutionTelephone549100,ConconullyUnknown,6/10/2005SoilPesticideUnknownFireSoilcontaminationTCPDeterminationA releaseoccurred at thissite, but nolonger poses athreat to humanenvironmentalhealth.Pacific549082,Heather6/22/2005,6/29/2005Public road,right-of-wayHerbicide,5 gallonFarm/agricultureNaturalphenomenonHumanTelephone –technicalassistanceNo narrative549149,Ilwaco7/1/2005,7/1/2005Surface watermarineHerbicide,PetroleumgasolinesheenVessel-otherHumanfactor-misconductWater pollutionTelephone-technicalassistanceAirboat carrying6 persons,petroleum, andaquaticherbicide sankat Willapa BayNWR.Professionaldiversrecovered theboat. Minimalgasolineleakageoccurred.550476,Unknown,Surface water-UnknownUnknownPotentialNo follow up167Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual ReportDepartment of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeWillapa9/7/2005freshpollution/releaseneededPierce546965,Tacoma3/22/2005,3/22/2005Building/structurePesticidePublic agencyAccident-otherHumanTelephoneNo narrative547112,Sumner3/28/2005,3/28/2005Surface waterfreshHerbicideFarm/agricultureHumanfactor-intentionalPotentialpollution/releaseReferralInvestigatorswere unable todeterminewhetherherbicideapplication hadbeen made orcaused damageto complainant’sproperty.Skagit547833,MountVernon4/29/2005,4/29/2005Surface waterfreshPesticideDomesticNaturalresourcedamageImproperprocedureEmail andTelephoneA wetlandsspecialistnotified the cityof a land parcelwith wetlandareas thatappeared tohave beensprayed withroundup. MountVernon officialsfound nowetlands thereand thus noviolations.SnohomishDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report168Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrative551148,ArlingtonUnknown,10/7/2005DitchPesticideCommercialImproperprocedurePotentialpollution/releaseFieldresponse,investigation,TCP –DeterminationSiteinvestigationfound nomisuse ofpesticides. Highlevels ofnutrients insurface waterappear to be anapplication,USDA orsurface waterissue.Stevens549960,HuntersHumanfactornegligence6/13/2005,6/13/2005Surface water-freshInsecticide,manureCommercialNaturalresourcedamageFieldresponse-investigationInvestigatorvisited feedlotand referredcase to StevensCountyConservationDistrict.Thurston548989,OlympiaSurface waterfreshLong LakeHerbicideDomestic6/17/2005,6/17/2005ImproperprocedureWater pollutionEmailA complaint ofpossibleherbicideapplication inLong Lake wasreferred toWSDA.1Walla Walla547447,4/12/2005,Ground waterPesticideCommercialHumanGround waterFieldCase involvingDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report169Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeCollegePlace4/12/2005factorincompetencecontaminationresponse-investigationa dead bird wasreferred toWSDA. Theinvestigationfound no illegalactivity.Whatcom550003,BellinghamSurface water,freshUnnamed creekHerbicideLogging/timberHumanfactor-otherUnknown,8/15/2005Water pollutionTelephoneContractorsprayed alongcreek, but failedto markboundaries toprotect livewaters. It wasrecommendedthat the streambe listed forsalmonidpresence andgenerate alarger bufferfrom road.550006,BellinghamUnknown,8/16/2005Surface water,freshFazon LakeTelephonetechnicalassistanceHerbicideDomesticImproperprocedurePotentialpollution/releaseNeighborscomplainedabout aneighboroversprayingherbicide onwetlands. Laterinvestigationcould not findDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report170Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativesignificantviolations orchemicalresidues.Applicator wastold he mustacquire anAquaticPesticidepermit.550292,Everson8/28/2005,8/28/2005Surface waterfreshHerbicideDomesticHumanfactor-otherWater pollutionTelephoneInvestigatorgave advice tocall local healthand WhatcomCounty SurfaceWater.Whitman547314,PullmanHumanfactorintentionalBridgeHerbicideTransportation-rail4/7/2005,4/8/2005Water pollutionReferralInvestigatorcontactedWSDOT for infoon theirherbicidepolicies and forrailway contactname.548773,Palouse6/16/2005,6/16/2005AirCommercialHumanfactor,intentionalPotentialpollution/releaseNo follow upneededYakima546113,Grandview1/26/2005,1/26/2005AirPesticideCommercialFireAirpollutionFieldresponse-Chemical fire atWilbur EllisDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report171Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativetechnicalassistanceand TCPvoluntarycompliancerequiredemergency/EPAresponse andSTART airmonitoring. Sitereceived a NoFurther Actiondeterminationthru TCPVoluntaryCleanupProgram.547084,MabtonTelephonetechnicalassistanceSite is irrigationpond forNorthwestHorticulture.There was noknown pesticideuse.Surface waterfreshPesticideCommercialHumanfactorimproperprocedures3/7/20053/28/2005Water pollution4/25/2005,4/25/2005Surface waterfresh,IrrigationPesticide30-200gallons547713,HarrahAccidenttrafficWater pollutionTelephoneCommercialAccidentcaused a truckcarryingpesticide to leak30-200 gallonsinto nearbydrainage ditch.WapatoIrrigationDistrict,Yakama Nationand EPA wereDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report172Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativenotified.Telephonetechnicalassistance,FieldresponseinvestigationNeighborsprayedRoundup inirrigation ditchon otherneighbor’sproperty. Shewas informed ofrequirement oflicense andpermit forspraying.HerbicideDomesticHumanfactorimproperprocedures548687,Yakima6/8/2005,6/9/2005Surface waterfreshWater pollutionShed fireoccurred atorchard, shedcontentsunknown. Firedept used highexpansion foamto reducesmoke. Localagenciesnotified forhealth impactsfrom smoke andsoilremediation.FireAirpollutionFieldresponseinvestigation548797,Yakima4/27/2005,4/27/2005AirPesticideFarm/agriculture549886,Zillah8/2/2005,8/2/2005Roadway, pavedPesticideCommercialUnknownUnknownFieldresponseinvestigationSix bags ofAcramite werefound nearDepartment of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report173Department of EcologySummary of Spill Program Pesticide-Related Complaints – 2005City,ERTS#IncidentDate,ReceivedDateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeYakima River.Most bags wereopened andcontentsscattered.Debris pickedup and properlydisposed of.Department of Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report174

# 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 symp toms. 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 (goggl es 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 wa s 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 wh ile 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 advis ed 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 spla shed 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 app lied 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 treat ed 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 packagi ng. 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 180

# 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 fu migants): Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oilInsecticide 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 sympto ms. 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 cour se. 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 rins e 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 desi ccant, 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 182

# 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 ti ght. 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 appl ying 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 fu migants): Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): SulfurInsecticide 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 weari ng 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 hydrocar bons; 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 neurol ogical, ocular

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 184

# 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). Hi s 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 "s ee" 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 contac ts. 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 penetra ted 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 186

# 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 app lication 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. So me 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 c hemicals 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 188

# 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 neur ological 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 wa s 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 190

# 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 cent er. 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 fo r two days. Educati onal 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 we aring 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)

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 192

# 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 provi ded 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 t he 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 gastr ointestinal 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 consi derable 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 t he 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 194

# 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 l abel 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 fertiliz ers 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):

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 196

# 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 t he 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 we aring 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 conti nued 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 198

# 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-; Piperonylbutoxide; 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 t hen 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 200

# 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 appl icator 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 wa s 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 repo rted 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

Department of Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 202

# 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 203Washington State Departmentof Labor and IndustriesWashington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionOrtingPierce309238483Tenkoz Govern 4E(Chlorpyrifos)Lorsban 15G(Chlorpyrifos)Tenkoz trifluralin4ECLabor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report205Thionex 50W15Vegetablesand MelonsWSDAT013-20058/18/051/26/06Failure to Abate Citations307 60005-1 No respiratory protectionprogram $1250.00307-60605 – No Respirator fittest$1250.00307-60805 – Not effective Respiratortraining $1250.00General Citations:Employer did not certify that violationshad been abated $100.00Penalties Assessed$3,850.00Follow-up307863548La CenterClark306710054PesticideHerbicidesNuCOP (Cuprichydroxide)LorsbanJavelin WGAimChlorpyriphos 4FFoamy Q&A AcidDisinfectant25Berry CropDOH7/11/057/12/05Serious CitationsNo Accident Prevention Program$150.00General CitationsPesticide storage near housingNo Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo hazardous chemical inventoryNo MSDS for each chemical usedNo First aid trained personNo orientation on field sanitationPenalties Assessed$150.00ReferralLabor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual ReportWashington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionLa CenterClark309018612Lorsban 4E(chlorpyrifos)20Berry CropsBlueberriesDOH7/11/20057/11/057/13/05Serious CitationsNo Accident Prevention ProgramNo hand washing facilitiesNo toiletGeneral CitationsNo written chemical hazardcommunication programNo chemical inventoryNo MSDSNo water with single use cupsNo orientation on sanitationNo first aid trained employeesPenalties Assessed$400.00ReferralWoodlandBenton308442755Captan50W,Actellic SE(cholinesteraseinhibitor)Systec 1988Truban 25 ECTerraclor75,ThiramgranulesMerit 7520NurseryBulbs1/11/053/16/05Serious CitationsNo emergency eyewash $100.00No pesticide handler or hazardouschemicals training in the past 5 years$100.00General CitationsRespiratory Protection Program DeficientNo information on voluntary respiratoruseNo medical evaluation for respiratorNo annual respirator fit testsWearing respirators with facial hairImproper respirator storagePenalties Assessed$200.00206ReferralWashington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionWenatcheeChelan309010213Thionex 50W(50% endosulfan)26Deciduous(apple) FruitTreesEmployeesprayedThionex for4 hourswith abrokenrespiratorpowercord.5/17/056/7/20056/7/059/23/05Serious Citation:Did not inspect and repair respirators$1,800.00Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report207General Citation:No safety meeting minutesPenalties Assessed$1,800.00ComplaintVancouverClark309241941Round Up UltraMax II(glyphosate),Curtail(chlorpyralid),Brush Spray,Fence Row Spray,Pasture Spray,Garlon 4, Hansten,Glystar Plus,Weedone LV6,Dual II Magnum,Buccaneer6Dairy(540 acres)8/2/059/2/059/29/05Serious Citations:No emergency eyewash or shower$300.00No MSDS for hazardous chemical$300.00No respirator fit tests $150.00General Citations:No Chemical Hazard communicationprogramNo labels on containers w/ hazardouschemicalsNo Medical EvaluationsNo respirator programFood stored in toilet and pesticidestorage rooms (referred to WSDA)Penalty Assessed: $750.00ComplaintPascoFranklin308582253Pesticides15CountyAuditor’sOffice2/16/052/24/053/16/05Serious Citations:No emergency eyewash $750.00No PPE hazard assessment $200.00No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgram including employee training$200.00Penalty Assessed: $1,150.00ComplaintLabor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual ReportWashington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionMountlakeTerraceSnohomish307963017Super TrimecCrossbowRound upRenovateCassaronOrthonexMeritWeed master35Lawn andGardenServices9/1/042/17/05Serious Citations:No emergency washing facilities $250.00General Citations:No chemical hazard communicationprogram or inventoryNo safety committee or bulletin boardNo written respirator programNo medical evaluation for respiratorPenalty Assessed: $250.00ProgrammedQuincyGrant309014140HerbicidesRound Up OriginalMax,Atrazine 4L12Wheat FarmOnionpacking10/11/0510/21/05Serious Citations:No Accident Prevention Program$250.00General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramPenalty Assessed: $250.00ProgrammedMt VernonSkagit308673607Pesticides11FlowerNurseryStock4/15/054/22/054/27/05General CitationsIncomplete Pesticide inventory recordsNo Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo accident Prevention ProgramNo Penalties AssessedReferralMill CreekSnohomish308446699Bayer advancedrose and flower18RetailNursery1/21/053/2/05General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo hazardous chemicals inventoryNo Respirator Program208No medical evaluation for respiratorNo Penalties AssessedReferralWashington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionWoodlandBenton308670116RoundupCrossbow2TimberTract3/23/053/30/054/12/05General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo Accident Prevention ProgramNo Penalties AssessedComplaintRoyal CityGrant309137339TrifolDeliverCalciumSilguad35AppleorchardEnteringbefore REI8/11/058/3/058/19/05General Citations:No soap and single-use towels.Pesticide safety information not posted.Personal protective equipment stored inpesticide-contaminated areas withpersonal clothes.No Penalties AssessedComplaintMattawaGrant308754738Organophosphatepesticides46DeciduousTree Fruits(apples)373 acres5/18/056/29/0511/28/05General Citations:No worker training or fittest recordsNo Respiratory Protection ProgramNo cartridge change out scheduleNo Penalties AssessedComplaintPascoFranklin308667377Pesticides14Bulkmaterialtransport,tankers3/17/054/22/055/5/05General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo Penalties AssessedComplaintRedmondKing309237394Methyl Bromide5Catalogueand MailOrderEmployerreceivesfumigatedcontainers8/4/058/15/058/22/05General CitationsNo Accident Prevention Programincluding method to ensure employeesare not exposed to Methyl BromideNo Penalties AssessedComplaintChewelahStevens309238988GlyphosateChlorothalonilEtoxazoleAbamectin33Nursery –OrnamentalTrees, Sod8/19/059/08/05General Citations:Employee with no chemical hazardcommunication training.ProgrammedLabor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report209Washington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionOlympiaThurston30844113HerbicidesTahoe 4E1Forestry12/17/042/7/05General CitationsPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)not worn as required, employee applyingpesticide w/o gloves required by labelNo Penalties AssessedProgrammedProsserCowlitz309237527Pesticides8Wheat Farm40 acres170 acres7/18/059/27/05General Citations:Did not display pesticide safety posterProgrammedWilburLincoln309237923Guthion 50WPLorsban 4ERallyMicrothiol SulfurPromotionThiosolSevinAmid thinSorba MGRegulaidZinc 50Simazine 4LPrincipSolicam DF1OrchardWheat farm8/31/0510/31/05General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo Accident Prevention ProgramNo Respiratory Protection ProgramNo respirator fit testingNo Penalties AssessedProgrammedGreenacresSpokane309134542SurflanRhomeneRoundup14Nursery –OrnamentalFlowers7/26/058/04/05General Citations:No training on pesticide hazardsNo respiratory program including medicalevaluationsNo Penalties AssessedProgrammedLabor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report210Washington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionSpokaneSpokane309237964Roundup(Glyphosate)Deadline MP(Metaldehyde)OrnamecArsenal2Nursery –OrnamentalFlowers8/30/059/07/05General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo hazardous chemicals inventory.No MSDS for each hazardous chemicalNo training about hazardous chemicals.No Penalties AssessedProgrammedEndicottWhitman309386985PesticidesPhenoxysUreas2GeneralFarmCattle4200 acresof Wheat10/18/0510/18/05General Citations:No Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramNo Accident Prevention ProgramNo MSDS for each hazardous chemicalused.No safety meeting minutesNo Penalties AssessedProgrammedOlympiaThurston308443118herbicides1ForestryServices12/17/041/3/05General Citations:Inadequate PPE for herbicide applicationNo Penalties AssessedProgrammedConnellFranklin309375087herbicides2Beef CattleFeedlot9/21/0510/22/06General CitationsNo Chemical Hazard CommunicationProgramProgrammedColbertSpokane309998144HerbicidesCholinesteraseinhibitingpesticides3Christmastrees10/5/0510/10/05General CitationsNo Accident Prevention ProgramNo Penalties AssessedProgrammedPascoFranklin309589323Pesticides14Bulkmaterialtransport12/09/0512/13/05No Citations issuedNo Penalties AssessedFollow up308667377Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report211Washington State Department of Labor and IndustriesSummary of Pesticide Inspections, 2005City,CountyInspection#PesticidesInvolved# ofEmployeeType ofBusinessHowExposedOtherAgenciesInvolvedIncidentDate/ComplaintDateInspectionDates(Opened)(Closed)Pesticide RelatedCitations/CostsType ofInspectionRoyal CityGrant309625192TrifolDeliverCalciumSilguad35Appleorchard12/22/0512/23/05No Citations issuedNo Penalties AssessedFollow up309137339PrescottWallaWalla309012243RallySevin80AppleOrchardSpraying &possibledrift ontoemployeesthinningapplesDOH5/25-31/05/6/13/056/30/056/30/05No Citations issuedNo Penalties AssessedReferralPascoFranklin309016285RallyIntrepidCalciumSevin80Apple &CherryOrchardSprayingcherries &applespossibledrift ontoemployeesthinningDOH5/25-31/05/6/13/056/30/056/30/05No Citations issuedNo Penalties AssessedReferralMattawaGrant309479855PesticidesImidan,Dipel,Calcium Chloride0AppleOrchardSprayingapples w/odecontamination,improperrespiratoryprotectionDOH10/26/0512/2/0512/2/05No InspectionNo employees at time of inspection, wentto MexicoNo Penalties AssessedReferralLabor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report212

# 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

DefinitionsWSDA I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 213 

# Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types

WSDA P ESTICIDE 

## L ICENSE 

## T YPES



## Commercial Applicator A person engaged in the business of applying pesticides to the land/property of another. This land can either be publicly or privately owned. Prior to license issuance, a Financial Responsibility Insurance Certificat e (FRIC) must be filed with WSDA by the insuring company.

Commercial Operator A person employed by a WSDA-lic ensed commercial applicator to apply pesticides to the land of another. This land can either be publicly or privately owned.

Commercial Pest

Control Consultant* A person who sells or offers pestic ides for sale at other than the licensed pesticide dealer outlet from which they are employed. In addition, commercial consultants may offer or supply

technical advice or make recommendations to the users of nonhome and garden pesticides. They may also perform wood destroying organism inspections. Licensed and employed commercial applicators and co mmercial operators may act as

commercial consultants without acquiring the consultant’s

license.

Dealer Manager* A person who supervises the distribution of pesticides (other than home and garden products) from a licensed pesticide

dealer outlet.

Private Applicator A person who applies or supervises the application of a “Restricted Use” pesticide on land owned or rented by him or his employer for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity.

Private Commercial Applicator A person who applies of supervises the use of a “Restricted Use” pesticide on land owned or rented by him or his employer for purposes other than the production of an agricultural commodity.

Public Operator A person who, while acting as an employee of a governmental agency, applies restricted use pe sticides by any means or general use pesticides by power equipment on public or private property. Public operators may act as public consultants. (Public operators licensed only in the P ublic Health category are exempt from the fee.)

Public Pest Control

Consultant* A person who, while acting as an employee of a governmental agency, offers or supplies technical advice, supervision, aid, or makes recommendations to the user of pesticides other than home and garden products. Public Consultants may not act as public operators without the operator’s license.

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 w ill consume, excavate, develop in, or otherwise modify the integrity of wood or wood products. They include, but are not limited to, carpenter ants, moisture ants, subterranean termites, damp wood termites, beetles in the family Anobiidae, and wood decay fungi (wood rot).

* License does not allow the holder to use or supervise the use of a restricted use pesticide. Refer to other

types for appropriate license.



# 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 EActive Pesticide Contaminated Sites (130)Through 2005Washington Department of EcologyToxics Cleanup Program7Data 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_2005November 7, 2006LegendConfirmed#0West Valley Middle SchoolMount Vernon PlazaOak Harbor Freight TerminalTerrace Heights Elementary SchoolMountainview ElementaryHeller Paterson LLCWA WSU Vancouver Res & ExtBlasdell ResidenceTexaco Station 632320402West Valley Junior HighWest Valley High School YakimaPesticide Contaminated SitesAdded in 2005 (11)Washington Department of EcologyToxics Cleanup Program7Data 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_2005LegendConfirmed#0RemediatedNovember 7, 2006#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#7#7#7#7#7#7#7Pesticide Contaminated Sites (195)Through 2005Washington Department of EcologyToxics Cleanup Program7Data 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_2005November 7, 2006LegendRemediated Pesticide Site#0Confirmed Pesticide Site

# 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 a nd 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 iden tify 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 p esticide 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 c holinesterase testing in Washington. This kit may present a promising technology for future recognition of pesticide-related depressions. If proven, it will help clinicians provide quicke r 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 workpl aces 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 labor atories. Either of these changes could reduce the program’s ability to identify and correct c onditions 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 fa ilure to use these valuable data fo r intervention and prevention. Recent efforts by California regulators to demonstrate the progr am’s value have been hindered by the absence of systematic data collection (Das et. al. 1 

## ). A recent examination of their laboratory quality fo und inadequate consistency and quality in cholinesterase testi ng by participating laboratories (Wilson et. al. 2 

## ). Washington can and has done better. Central data colle ction of test results, analysis of program impact, and oversight of laboratory performance are key im provements over the California program and are in keeping with the Governor’s emphasis on dem onstrating efficacy of program expenditure. The PIRT Panel members strongly recommend that this high value program be maintained by collecting data centrally and ensuring that curre nt 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. M eeting 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 employer s 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, p esticides used, equipment used, and job activities (mixer, loader, applicator, equipment repair) between blood tests.

5. Periodically assess enrollment of covered em ployees to better understand barriers to their participation in the monitoring program.

6. Implement a unique identifying number for each enro lled 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 implementati on 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 a nnual 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 threshol ds, the number of employees with depressions, and the number of employers associated with depressions. The re port 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 equi pment requirements on pestic ide labels, to improve worker safety training, and to focus research attenti on on alternative pest contro l products and application methods. Continued reporting will ensu re 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

PIRT Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 224

## 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 a nd 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 ch anges 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 panelPIRT 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 Northwes t 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 ar e 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 stat es 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



# P ESTICIDE 

# I NCIDENT 

# R EPORTING AND 

# T RACKING 

# R EVIEW 

# P ANEL

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 percen tages 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 mode l has been used in the registration of cosmetics and drugs and has allowed listing of ingredients without competitive harm 1



## .

In the meantime, the petitions submitted by the State Attorney’s General and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides are asking for a reasonabl e 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 comple te ingredient information on the pesticide label would: facilitate proper diagnosis and care of patients who are over-expo sed to pesticides; improve the capacity of consumers to protect their health; and im prove 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 hea lth 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 informa tion, which is especially important for diagnosis and

DOH Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 230 

## management of an allergy type reaction.

Other HCPs appear to assess patients only for the activ e ingredients listed on the label. We do not know whether this latter group may misunde rstand 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 allergie s 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 e xposure. We are generally us ing 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 th e 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 hea lth 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 Co mmittee 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. 

# W

ashington 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 illne ss 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 expo sed 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 us ing 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. Farmwork ers who apply pesticides are at greatest risk since they may work with concen trated forms of highly toxic pe sticides. 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 work er 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 creat ed a special multi-agen cy 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 repor ts of pesticide incidents in Washington www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/PIRT/default.htm

Washington State Department of Health, Sch ool 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

DOH Letters I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2006 Annual Report 232