Agency Data

2008

2009 Annual Report

 Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking 

 Review Panel

Approved by PIRT Panel - April 15, 2010

PIRT
PIRT Review Panel Representatives

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

Chair

Gregg Grunenfelder, Washington State Department of Health

Cynthia Lopez, Washington State Department of Health

Members

Ann Wick, Washington State Department of Agriculture

Debby Sargeant, Washington State Department of Ecology

Anna Jackson, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Pamela Edwards, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

Karen Ripley, Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Liesl Zappler, General Public

Vacant, Practicing Toxicologist

Matthew Keifer, MD, MPH, University of Washington

James H. Williams, Washington Poison Center

Bill Robertson, Washington Poison Center

Vince Herbert, PhD, Washington State University 
Pesticide Incident Reporting and 

Tracking Review Panel 

2009 Annual Report 

A report to the governor, agency heads, the legislature, and the public as required by 

Chapter 380, Laws of 1989, and RCW 70.104. 

Approved by the Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel April 15, 2010. 

To obtain copies or for additional information, please contact: 

Department of Health, Pesticide Program 

Post Office Box 47846 

Olympia, Washington 98504-7846 

Phone: 1-877-485-7316 

E-mail: eha@doh.wa.gov 

The annual report is available in electronic format on the Internet at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/Pirt. 

Errors or errata found after publication of this report will also be posted at this address. 

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

To submit a request, please call 1-800-525-0127 (voice) or 1-800-833-6388 (TTY/TDD). 

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

the toll-free number 1-877-485-7316. 

DOH 334-230 April 2010
Table of Contents 

List of Acronyms ________________________________________________________ i

Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 1

Introduction __________________________________________________________ 1

PIRT Panel Activities ___________________________________________________ 1

Potential Trends and Important Issues _____________________________________ 2

Priority Needs and Recommendations _____________________________________ 6

Agriculture _____________________________________________________________ 9

Background __________________________________________________________ 9

Complaints __________________________________________________________ 9

Violations ___________________________________________________________ 16

Agricultural Complaints ________________________________________________ 19

Non-Agricultural Complaints ____________________________________________ 19

Cases Involving Children _______________________________________________ 20

Severity of Reported Complaints _________________________________________ 20

Type of Pesticide Involved _____________________________________________ 24

Enforcement Actions __________________________________________________ 26

Fines and License Suspensions Levied in 2008 _____________________________ 27

Other Agencies Involved _______________________________________________ 27

Ecology ______________________________________________________________ 29

Background _________________________________________________________ 29

Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (Spills) Program: 

Pesticide-Related Incidents _____________________________________________ 29

Toxics Cleanup Program: Contaminated Sites Containing Pesticides ____________ 30

Water Quality Program: Aquatic Pesticide Permits ___________________________ 31

Surface Water Monitoring ______________________________________________ 34

Department of Health ___________________________________________________ 37

Background _________________________________________________________ 37

Sources of Case Reports ______________________________________________ 37

Case Investigation Criteria _____________________________________________ 38

Classification of Investigated Cases ______________________________________ 39

Number of Investigations _______________________________________________ 40

Number of DPP Cases ________________________________________________ 41

Underreporting ______________________________________________________ 42

Severity of Medical Outcome ___________________________________________ 43

Location of Investigated Cases __________________________________________ 45

Agricultural vs. Non-Agricultural Cases ____________________________________ 46

Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness ____________________________ 49

Agricultural Pesticide Drift Events ________________________________________ 49
Non-Agricultural Pesticide Events ________________________________________ 54

Highlighted 2008 Pesticide-Illness Events Involving Multiple People _____________ 56

Contributing Factors to Pesticide-Related Illness Among Agricultural Workers _____ 58

Agricultural Pesticide Handlers (n=167) ___________________________________ 61

Other Agricultural Workers (n=184) _______________________________________ 66

Limitations __________________________________________________________ 69

Conclusions from 2008 Data and NIOSH Study _____________________________ 69

Prevention Activities __________________________________________________ 71

Key Prevention Messages by Target Group ________________________________ 72

Labor and Industries ____________________________________________________ 75

Background _________________________________________________________ 75

DOSH Cholinesterase Monitoring Program ________________________________ 76

Cholinesterase Monitoring Results _______________________________________ 76

DOSH Enforcement and Consultation _____________________________________ 78

L&I Claims Insurance Services Division, Claims Administration Program _________ 81

Appendix A - Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel

Pesticides – Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090 __________________________ 85

2009 Panel Representatives ____________________________________________ 85

Pesticide Incident Definition ____________________________________________ 85

Primary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticide Exposure ________________ 85

Appendix B - Case and Severity Classifications

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications _______________ 95

NIOSH Severity Classifications __________________________________________ 96

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category ________________________________ 97

Appendix C - Agency Data Summaries

Washington State Department of Agriculture, 2008 Case Data _________________ 99 

Agency Data Summary Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program __ 129

Washington State Department of Health Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary 

Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures _______________________ 131

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Summary of Pesticide 

Inspections, 2008 ___________________________________________________ 155

Appendix D - License Types and Enforcement Definitions

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types __________ 169

Washington State Department of Agriculture, Enforcement Action Definitions _____ 170

Appendix E - Department of Ecology Maps 

Pesticide Contaminated Sites Added in 2008 ______________________________ 171 

Active Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008 _________________________ 173 

Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008 ______________________________ 175
List of Tables 

Table 1. WSDA Complaints and Violations, 2004 – 2008 _________________________ 9

Table 2. WSDA Counties with the Most Complaints, 2004 - 2008 _________________ 11

Table 3. WSDA Nature of Initial Complaints by Number _________________________ 13

Table 4. Drift and Human Exposure ________________________________________ 14

Table 5. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2004 – 2008* _____________________ 17

Table 6. Cases Involving Children 2008 _____________________________________ 20

Table 7. Severity Rating of WSDA Complaint Cases, 2004 – 2008 ________________ 21

Table 8. Active Ingredients Most Commonly Involved in WSDA Complaints 2008 _____ 25

Table 9. WSDA Agency Actions, 2004 – 2008 ________________________________ 26

Table 10. Ecology Pesticide-Related Complaints, 2001-2008* ____________________ 30

Table 11. Status of Pesticide-Contaminated Sites Statewide, 2008 ________________ 31

Table 12. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management Permit, 2008 ___________________ 32

Table 13. Oyster Growers Permit, Carbaryl Usage, 2005 - 2008 __________________ 32

Table 14. Noxious Weed NPDES Permit, 2008 _______________________________ 33

Table 15. Fish Management NPDES Permit, 2008_____________________________ 33

Table 16. Irrigation District NPDES Permit, 2008 ______________________________ 34

Table 17. Mosquito General NPDES Permit, 2008 _____________________________ 34

Table 18. Classification Criteria of Definite, Probable, and Possible Cases __________ 39

Table 19. DPP Case Classification, 2004 – 2008 ______________________________ 42

Table 20. Severity of Medical Outcome, 2005 – 2008 __________________________ 44

Table 21. Top Ten Counties with the Most Reported DPP Cases, 2008 ____________ 45

Table 22. Top Ten Counties with the Most DPP Cases per 100,000 Population, 2008 _ 46

Table 23. Annual Agricultural and Non-Agricultural DPP Cases, 2000 – 2008 ________ 46

Table 24. DPP Cases by Season of the Year, 2008 ____________________________ 47

Table 25. Occupational and Non-Occupational DPP Cases by Age/Gender, 2008 ____ 48

Table 26. DPP Cases of Agricultural Drift to Workers and Others, 2004 – 2008 ______ 50

Table 27. Agricultural Occupational and Non-Occupational DPP Cases by Source ____ 50

Table 28. DPP Agricultural Cases by Pesticide Ingredient, 2008 __________________ 52

Table 29. Exposure Site for Non-Agricultural, Occupational, and 

Non-Occupational DPP Cases, 2008 _______________________________ 54

Table 30. Target Pest for Non-Agricultural, Non-Occupational Cases Exposed to 

Pesticide Applications by Professional and Non-Professional Applicators ___ 55

Table 31. Contributing Factors to Pesticide-Related Illness (Agricultural Workers) ____ 60

Table 32. PPE Problems That Contributed to Exposure _________________________ 61

Table 33. Primary Reason Report for Missing PPE ____________________________ 62
Table 34. Spills and Splashes Identified as Contributing Factors __________________ 63

Table 35. Comparison of Employer and Handler Cholinesterase (ChE) Testing and 

Cholinesterase Depressions in 2004 – 2008 _________________________ 77

Table 36. Status of L&I Claims Initially Related to Pesticides, 2001 - 2008 __________ 83

Table 37. Comparison of L&I Claims and DOH Classification Status, 2008 __________ 84
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Incident Occurrence by Date ______________________________________ 12

Figure 2. Initial Complaints by Category _____________________________________ 13

Figure 3. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2008 ___________________________ 17

Figure 4. WSDA Type of Licensee Involved in Cases with and without Violations, 

2008 _________________________________________________________ 18

Figure 5. Source of Case Reports, 2008* ____________________________________ 38

Figure 6. Classification of Investigated Cases by Number and Percentage, 2008 _____ 40

Figure 7. Health Events and Cases Investigated, 2004 – 2008 ___________________ 41

Figure 8. Type of Medical Care Sought, 2008 DPP Cases _______________________ 44

Figure 9. Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Occupational DPP Cases, 2004 – 2008 ___ 49

Figure 10. Type of Illness and Injury for Handlers of Cholinesterase-Inhibiting 

Pesticides,1997 – 2008 _________________________________________ 54

Figure 11. Health Pesticide-Related Illness Cases Among Agricultural Workers from 

2003 – 2008 __________________________________________________ 59

Figure 12. Type of Pesticide Involved with Handler Cases _______________________ 65

Figure 13. DOSH Workplace Safety and Health Inspections, 2001 – 2008 __________ 79

Figure 14. DOSH Inspections by Type of Workplace, 2008 ______________________ 80

Figure 15. WISHA General and Serious Violations Involving Pesticides, 2008 _______ 81
i

List of Acronyms 

DOH Washington State Department of Health 

DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health 

DPP Definitely, Probably, or Possibly 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

HCP Health Care Provider 

L&I Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NOC Notice of Correction

NOI Notice of Intent 

PCO Pest Control Operator 

PIRT Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking 

PUR Pesticide Use Reporting 

RCW Revised Code of Washington

SPI Structural Pest Inspection 

UPEST Urban Pesticide Education Strategy Team 

UW University of Washington 

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDO Wood Destroying Organism 

WISHA Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act

WAPC Washington Poison Center 

WPS Worker Protection Standard 

WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture 

WSU Washington State University 
Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The legislature created the Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) 

Review Panel to monitor pesticide-related incidents that have suspected health 

or environmental effects (Chapter 70.104 RCW). PIRT Panel members include 

representatives of six state agencies and the Washington Poison Center (WAPC) 

that respond to statewide pesticide issues, two university members, and two 

governor appointees: a toxicologist and a member of the public (Appendix A). 

Member agencies conduct pesticide incident investigations in accordance with 

their statutory responsibilities and report findings to PIRT for evaluation. PIRT 

submits an annual report summarizing pesticide incidents to the legislature, 

governor, agency heads, and the public. This report presents individual and 

combined agency data for pesticide-related incidents that occurred in 2008 and a 

summary of the activities of PIRT and its member agencies for 2009. The report 

includes summaries of agency data and pesticide-related activities for 2008 by 

the Departments of Agriculture (WSDA), Ecology, Health, and Labor and 

Industries (L&I). 

PIRT Panel Activities 

The panel met 13 times in 2009. Seven meetings were held in Tumwater, five in 

Tukwila, and one in Granger. The panel operated without an appointed 

toxicologist for 2009. Both the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and 

WAPC had reduced participation in PIRT Panel meetings during the second half 

of 2009 due to decreased resources. Funding cuts within state government also 

led the state Department of Health to reduce its costs associated with PIRT in 

2009 by cutting a previously funded “PIRT Coordinator” position and reducing 

administrative and technical support hours dedicated to PIRT. 

PIRT activities included providing an analysis of House Bill 1946 (2007) 

comparing reporting systems in Oregon, California, and New York State in 

response to a legislative inquiry regarding pesticide use reporting. The panel 

evaluated and discussed agency PIRT data, and invited speakers to present on 

topics important to their work, including: 

• The Work to Home Exposure Pathway - Strategies to Protect Pregnant 

Women and Children. Presented by Helen Murphy, Pacific Northwest 

Agricultural Safety and Health Center. 

• The Air Monitoring Study for MITC Fumigant. Presented by Vince Hebert, 

Washington State University. 

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 1
• The Air Monitoring Study for Organophosphate Insecticides. Presented by 

Michael Yost, University of Washington. 

• Assessing Impacts to Growers, Farm Labor, and Environmental Groups from 

the Phase Out of Azinphos Methyl. Presented by Nadine Lehrer, Washington 

State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center. 

• Preliminary Results from Pesticide Air Monitoring Research. Presented by 

Richard Fenske, University of Washington. 

• Land Use Change in Washington State. Presented by Andrew Gray, USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

• An Overview of 2003 – 2008 NIOSH Data Evaluation. Presented by Barbara 

Morrissey, Department of Health. 

• Review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pesticide Program Dialog 

Committee. Presented by Matthew Keifer, University of Washington. 

Potential Trends and Important Issues 

Potential Trends 

Incident Investigations. Both the Department of Health and WSDA report fewer 

confirmed pesticide-related events in 2008 than in 2007. Department of Health 

confirmed 161 pesticide-illness events out of 310 events investigated — 

compared to 181 confirmed events in 2007. WSDA investigated 172 complaints 

during 2008, with 108 violations associated with the complaints (63%). WSDA 

data indicate a trend in reduction of pesticide related complaints that their agency 

has received since PIRT reports started (1990). Analysis of health department 

data show that, although dropping in 2008, the numbers of events confirmed as 

definitely, probably, or possibly (DPP) related to pesticide exposure has 

remained fairly constant over the past five years. Although department of health 

staff noted less confirmed pesticide-illness events overall in 2008 compared to 

2007, the number of people involved was higher. This is because more events in 

2008 involved multiple people than in previous years. Two large events involved 

46 and 19 exposed people, respectively, and were associated with drift from 

agricultural pesticide applications. These and other drift events accounted in 

large part to the 24 percent increase in pesticide-related claims investigated by 

L&I. 

2 Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Drift Incidents. Drift continues to be one of the most frequent types of complaints 

involving pesticide applications. In agriculture, drift complaints are approximately 

75 percent of the violation cases. Most complaints with violations involved 

pesticides applied to orchards. Orchard settings intermixed with other crops, 

housing, and heavily traveled roads increases the potential for complaints. 

Pesticide products involved in drift events in 2008 were most often herbicides 

and fumigants. 

Type of Pesticides Involved. Unlike previous years, there were no DPP cases 

investigated by state health staff among agricultural workers in 2008 involving the 

insecticides chlorpyrifos, phosmet, carbaryl, or Malathion. Azinphos-methyl 

cases, however, increased in 2008. Except for azinphos-methyl, WSDA and 

Department of Health data for 2008 point to possibly less-toxic pesticides 

involved in these cases, and together with data from L&I’s cholinesterase 

monitoring program this year, may indicate reduced use of organophosphate 

insecticides in the state. It is too early to consider this a trend, and more years of 

analysis are needed. Use of azinphos-methyl will be discontinued in 2012 and 

will also cause changes in the types of products used for insect control and affect 

future data analysis. 

There were serious events involving metam sodium fumigants in 2008. EPA is 

currently implementing new restrictions around use of this and other fumigants 

that should improve protection of workers and bystanders. Washington illness 

surveillance data and community air monitoring data were submitted to EPA, 

which cited it in its decision to increase public health protections. The risk 

mitigation measures proposed by EPA for a two-phase implementation program 

can be seen at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/soil_fumigants/. Label 

changes for application rates and practices along with enhanced worker safety 

requirements will be implemented in 2010. Further restrictions including buffers 

and emergency preparedness will be implemented in 2011. All soil fumigants will 

be classified as Restrictive Use Products, requiring a license to apply. 

With the exception of drift, complaints in 2008 continued to cover more diverse 

topics and a greater variety of pesticides than in the early years of the PIRT 

report. Applicators appear to be using more pest-specific products with a greater 

diversity of active ingredients and relying less on broad spectrum pest control 

products - with the exception of 2,4-D and glyphosate. These two herbicides 

were again the most frequently reported active ingredients in 2008, WSDA 

investigations. This is reflected in the number of different products involved in 

incidents and information received from educators and commodity associations. 

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 3
Cholinesterase Monitoring. The number of pesticide handlers undergoing blood 

cholinesterase testing in 2008 increased by about 8 percent from 2007. 

Conversely, the number of participating employers continued its downward trend 

but appears to be leveling off. Participation in the monitoring program is voluntary 

for workers. Larger organizations tend to participate in higher numbers than 

smaller ones. L&I information suggests that this may reflect changes in industry 

pesticide use patterns; increased employer experience in identifying pesticide 

handlers covered by the L&I blood sample testing requirements of WAC 296-

307-148, and improved employer actions that limit handler exposure (e.g., 

increased use of integrated pest management techniques). However, these and 

other potential influencing factors have not been studied. To achieve adequate 

levels of participation in agricultural pesticide handler cholinesterase monitoring, 

factors which encourage or discourage worker and employer participation in the 

program should be studied. 

Although case numbers have fluctuated, the Department of Health has seen an 

average of about ten illness cases annually among handlers over the last ten 

years. The drop in cholinesterase-inhibiting insecticide induced illness cases 

among pesticide handlers to three cases in 2008 is notable. 

Important Issues 

Air Monitoring Studies. The 2007 Washington Legislature allocated $538,000 to 

the Department of Health to carry out contracts with the University of Washington 

and Washington State University to measure certain pesticides in the air of 

agricultural communities. Air monitoring studies focused on organophosphate 

insecticides in two regions of the state and on methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) in 

one region. These studies have been completed and all results are posted at 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/Pest/driftresults.htm. Department of Health staff is in 

the process of reviewing and interpreting these studies and anticipates having 

reports completed during the spring of 2010. 

Analysis of Factors that Contribute to Pesticide-Illness Among Agricultural 

Workers. Department of Health completed a five year study funded by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to better identify 

contributing factors for pesticide illnesses and injuries among agricultural 

workers. From 2003 to 2008, the agency tracked 351 cases of agricultural 

workers with illness or injury plausibly related to occupational pesticide exposure. 

• Of the 351 agricultural worker cases, 167 were pesticide handlers. This 

group showed a higher percentage of moderate to severe outcomes (14%) 

compared to other workers (10%). Fifty-six percent of the pesticide handlers 

(68) were without at least one piece of required personal protection 

equipment (PPE) or had another identified problem with their PPE (29 

4 Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
handlers). In 53 of the 167 cases, pesticide handlers appeared to have 

complied with the PPE requirements but were still over-exposed with 

resulting injury. In eight cases, handlers reported that while driving air-blast 

sprayers in orchards they were exposed on their face and neck when they 

turned the tractor at the end of the row. This is partly due to turning their 

heads to look back at the sprayer during the turn. They may also drive back 

through spray mist as they start the next row. This should be explored to 

determine if the directions and cautions on the label are sufficiently protective 

and how safety training may be improved. There were problems with the 

employer providing the correct PPE. Enhanced training for employers in this 

regard is recommended. 

• The remaining 184 cases were other agricultural workers not specifically 

involved with pesticide handling. Pesticide drift was the leading factor in their 

over-exposure. The Department of Health evaluated 35 incidents in which 

three handlers and 101 other agricultural workers were exposed. All 35 

incidents involved pressurized application equipment. Two-thirds of the 

incidents (23) involved ground sprayers in orchards. Twenty of 23 orchard 

incidents involved insecticide exposures; 70 percent of these were 

cholinesterase inhibitors. No other agricultural crop had more than two drift 

incidents involving workers. Data suggest that drift-related illness among 

agricultural workers should decrease with continuing efforts to replace the 

most acutely toxic products used on tree fruit and efforts to modify or replace 

air blast sprayers. 

Based on this analysis of data, key worker protection messages and audiences 

for targeted prevention work have been identified. Agencies are in the process of 

identifying other prevention activities to address specific findings. 

Pesticides in Surface Waters. From 2006-2008 Ecology and WSDA conducted a 

study of pesticides in surface water in five basins: Thornton Creek in the CedarSammamish basin representing urban land use; the lower Skagit-Samish basin 

representing western Washington agricultural practices; the lower Yakima basin 

representing irrigated agriculture; and the Wenatchee and Entiat basins 

representing tree fruit agriculture. A total of 74 pesticides were detected during 

2006-2008. Seven of these exceeded a water quality standard or assessment 

criterion. Pesticide concentrations found likely do not directly affect salmonids, 

but at some sites may affect aquatic invertebrate populations, a food source for 

salmon. Results were compared to 2003-2005 pesticide sampling results and the 

only trend identified was a significant decrease in herbicide detections for 

Thornton Creek, the urban site.

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 5
Washington Poison Control Center. Due to state budget reductions that were 

implemented in 2009, WAPC was unable to contribute a section to the report this 

year. Poison Center data are still being provided electronically to the Department 

of Health for pesticide illness case reporting purposes. The Department of Health 

has prepared this brief summary of WAPC data to highlight its importance in 

pesticide illness surveillance.

WAPC is a primary source of pesticide illness case reports to the Department of 

Health’s Pesticide Program. Reporting from WAPC provided approximately 45 

percent of the total cases that resulted in Department of Health investigations in 

2008, and is normally the largest source of cases reported to Department of 

Health for investigation. 

WAPC receives about 2,000 pesticide-related human exposure calls each year. 

These calls remained stable in 2008. Pesticide-related calls accounted for about 

three percent (2,027) of their total 67,575 human poison calls. 

Department of Health conducted 310 pesticide illness investigations in 2008. Of 

these, 139 (45%) were WAPC referrals; 111 (78%) were determined to be 

definitely, probably, or possibly related to pesticide exposures. This rate of DPP 

cases referred by WAPC is higher than the overall rate of 52 percent. Reports 

from WAPC that are investigated by Department of Health tend to include precise 

medical care information, enabling the investigator to obtain medical record and 

exposure documentation. They tend to be single, rather than multiple-illness 

events. This makes it easier to document and classify as DPP. Sources like 

WSDA and L&I Claims Unit tend to report a higher proportion of the multipleexposure agricultural related events than does WAPC. These types of cases may 

be more difficult to document and classify. 

Priority Needs and Recommendations 

Reduce agricultural pesticide drift. Pesticide drift continues to be a major source 

of agricultural violations and illnesses. WSDA has been working with industry and 

EPA regarding drift reduction policies, training of applicators and adoption of 

products and application equipment that reduce drift. New nozzle regulations are 

also being implemented for reducing drift in eastern Washington. Agencies 

should continue to identify ways to prevent pesticide drift onto workers and 

adjacent properties. PIRT recommends support for Washington State University 

to research better management practices that reduce pesticide drift. 

6 Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Reduce pesticide exposure to agricultural workers. The NIOSH five-year 

evaluation of factors that contribute to pesticide illness is providing essential 

information for effective prevention programs. PIRT supports the agencies in 

continuing to collect data and conducting analysis that addresses the findings of 

this study. While agency prevention efforts are effectively designed, barriers such 

as literacy, language, culture, trust, and the transient nature of migrant pesticide 

applicators and handlers still exists. More work is needed to bridge the barriers 

and engage agricultural pesticide handlers. The recommendations made in the 

Department of Health’s Contributing Factors study regarding messages for 

specific audiences should be discussed fully among the education and outreach 

staff of the involved agencies, (Departments of Health, Agriculture, L&I) and “fact 

checked” and refined by the audiences for which they are intended. Worker input 

to prevention plans will help improve messages and may suggest additional 

strategies to reduce pesticide exposure and illness. 

Support Reduction of Air-Blast Sprayer Use. Department of Health and WSDA 

data support moving away from air-blast sprayers in order to prevent pesticide 

related exposures and illnesses. PIRT recommends supporting and encouraging 

a phase-in of better technology and growing practices and phasing out air-blast 

sprayers as economics allow. 

Increase Prevention Efforts. Agencies have put much effort in to collecting causal 

data around pesticide illnesses with the goal of carrying out data-driven 

prevention programs. Agencies should continue to focus on enhancing 

partnerships with other agencies and universities, completing the data analysis, 

and developing comprehensive prevention efforts. The amount and quality of 

cooperation among all the involved agencies continued in 2008, as reflected by 

the successful “co-investigations” of the large drift events mentioned. 

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 7
8 Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 

 

Ensure the provision of anonymity in complaints. During focus group meetings 

with farm workers in the Yakima area in 2001, workers explained that they would 

not likely take time off from work to seek health care for mild to moderate 

symptoms. They are also unlikely to self report to a government agency, voicing 

concerns about possible risks to job security1

. All agencies that investigate 

pesticide-related incidents should be aware of the special barriers that 

employees may face to reporting pesticide-related illness and seeking health 

care. Agencies should seek to increase the ability of workers to report complaints 

anonymously and include in their worker education efforts, discussion of the 

rights and ability of workers to report complaints. L&I should increase its level of 

unannounced inspections and continue to highlight the ability to file anonymous 

complaints-noting how to do this in Spanish and English on the L&I Web site and 

outreach posters. 

Secure a Reliable Means of Funding. Many of the state-level pesticide activities 

rely on state general fund revenues. The budget crisis has already affected the 

capacity of PIRT agencies to carry-out their mandates. A significant portion of 

WSDA’s pesticide program is supported by registrant and licensing fees. 

However, not all pesticide users are required to be licensed and the registration 

fee is a fixed amount, not based on the amount of product used within the state. 

Funding models exist in other states that fund pesticide-specific public health and 

enforcement activities from pesticide sales taxes and pesticide registration fees. 

Agencies should explore options that realign costs of managing pesticide 

hazards in the state with industries profiting from pesticide use in the state. For 

example, the state of California uses a self-assessment program that assesses a 

fee on all pesticide sales, levied at the point of first sale into the state. (A "mill" is 

equal to one-tenth of a cent and the rate is set in statute). This "mill assessment" 

is currently 21 mills, or 2.1 cents per dollar of sales ($2.10 for each $100.00). Mill 

assessment revenues are placed in a special fund and used only to support the 

state’s pesticide regulatory program. The cost to support the program is borne 

proportionally more by registrants that sell more in the state.

1

 See “Improving Data Quality in Pesticide Illness Surveillance” June 17, 2004, at 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/improving_data_quality_in_pesticide_illness_surveillance2004.pdf.
Agriculture 

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

investigations during 2008. 

Background 

The Pesticide Management Division of WSDA protects human health and the 

environment by ensuring the safe and legal distribution, use, and disposal of 

pesticides in Washington State. 

The WSDA investigates all complaints it receives concerning possible pesticide 

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

inspections for wood destroying organisms (WDO). The division also inspects 

marketplaces, importers, manufacturers, and pesticide application sites for 

compliance with state and federal laws and regulations on a non-complaint basis. 

Complaints 

During 2008, WSDA investigated 172 complaints (Table 1). After investigation, 

WSDA determined that 121 (70%) complaints involved pesticide applications and 

47 (27%) complaints were unrelated to actual applications. The application status 

of three complaints was not specified and one case was referred to another 

agency. 

Examples of complaints unrelated to applications were structural inspections or 

licensing complaints. There were 108 violations associated with the 172 

complaints (63%). This continues the trend in reduction of pesticide-related 

complaints the department has received since the PIRT report started. The first 

PIRT report which contained information on 1990 complaints showed WSDA 

investigated 408 incidents. The highest number of WSDA complaints received in 

one year since the PIRT reports started was 558 in 1992. Appendix C lists all 

WSDA pesticide-related complaint investigations for 2008. 

Table 1. WSDA Complaints and Violations, 2004 – 2008 

Year Total Complaints Violations 

2004 200 122 (61%) 

2005 193 113 (59%) 

2006 206 137 (66%) 

2007 177 104 (59%) 

2008 172 108 (63%) 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 9
Location and Frequency of Complaints 

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

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

general, Western Washington complaints were about structural pest inspections 

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

applicators. Most Eastern Washington complaints were about agricultural 

applications, licenses and drift. Drift continues to be one of the most frequent 

types of complaint involving pesticide applications. However, complaints about 

potential misuse such as the wrong product used to control pests or complaints 

about a neighbor’s use remain frequent. Licensing, records, notification and 

SPI/WDO inspections were the most frequent non-pesticide application 

complaints. With the exception of drift, complaints in 2008 continue to cover more 

diverse topics than in the early years of the PIRT report. This could partially be 

due to an increase in the diversity of pesticide related regulations that the 

department is responsible for enforcing since 1990. For example, the department 

enforces added regulations for Worker Protection Standards (WPS), Structural 

Pest Inspections and Chemigation requirements. Potential instances of misuse 

are diverse. Most are from residential areas and may be, for example, a neighbor 

using a pesticide to control weeds or trees that are obstructing views. 

In 2008, there was only one complaint about a possible drift to bees. This 

complaint was settled without the department taking action as the complainant 

withdrew the case after settling with the applicator. Recent research from 

Washington State University has proposed that the loss of bees due to Colony 

Collapse Disorder may be from a combination of a new pathogen and a buildup 

of pesticides in old combs. Bee keepers are being advised to change out honey 

combs more frequently. Work continues on how best to manage the pathogen. 

Other research from the US Department of Agriculture suggests that multiple 

infections from a combination of viruses inhibit protein formation in the bees and 

that pesticides are not implicated. 

In 2008, 103 (60%) of complaint investigations occurred in Eastern Washington 

and 68 (40%) in Western Washington. One complaint concerned a request to an 

out of state applicator for records. 

10 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
In the top ten counties of the state with complaint investigations, 62 percent of 

the investigations were from Eastside counties although those same counties 

accounted for only 16 percent of the state population. Comparing the two 

counties with the most complaints, Grant County on the Eastside had 

approximately 1 complaint per 4,976 residents while King County on the 

Westside2

 had approximately 1 complaint per 110,835 residents. Statewide, the 

ratio was 1 complaint per 14,036 residents on the Eastside and 1 complaint per 

75,616 residents on the Westside. As many complaints are about drift, 

particularly agricultural drift, and most Eastside complaints are about an 

agricultural application, these numbers support that drift is a prime driver for 

complaints to the department. 

Table 2 lists the counties with the most complaint investigations from 2004 

through 2008. 

Table 2. WSDA Counties with the Most Complaints, 2004 - 2008 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

King 28 Spokane 22 Spokane 20 Pierce 14 King 17 

Grant 20 King 20 Grant 19 Grant 13 Grant 17 

Spokane 17 Chelan 18 Pierce 18 Spokane 13 Benton 16 

Benton 15 Grant 16 Yakima 15 Snohomish 12 Yakima 13 

Yakima 15 Yakima 12 King 13 King 10 Spokane 12 

Walla Walla 11 Douglas 11 Douglas 11 Benton 10 Skagit 10 

Pierce 11 Pierce 10 Okanogan 10 Yakima 10 Walla Walla 8 

Snohomish 10 Benton 8 Franklin 9 Chelan 8 Pierce 7 

Chelan 8 - - Whatcom 8 Whatcom 8 Franklin 7 

- - - - - - Whitman 8 - - 

Timing of Pesticide Related Complaints 

The workload for investigations of complaints varies significantly during the year. 

In general, most investigators initiate case investigations within one working day 

of receiving the complaint. However, there is more variation that occurs as a 

factor of when the actual application took place. In 2008, 12 cases occurred 

before January, 2008 (the complaint was initiated with the department in 2008), 

30 cases occurred January through March, 74 cases April through June, 40 

cases July through September and five cases October through December. The 

date of one case was unknown although it was investigated in the spring. 

 

2

 Population statistics from the Washington State Department of Financial Management for 2008. 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 11
Figure 1. Incident Occurrence by Date 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Before 2008 January - March April - June July - September October -

December

Response Time 

In 2008, WSDA responded within one working day for 154 (89%) of the 172 

complaints. All complaints about possible human exposure to pesticides were 

responded to within one working day. 

Nature of Complaints 

Complaints for 2008 were categorized according to the nature of the initial 

complaint received. The categorization of complaints for 2008 is shown in Figure 

2. Investigation may find the complaint not valid, substantiate the initial 

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

concerns a possible drift. When the agency investigates, it may determine that 

drift did not occur, but may find that the applicator applied at the wrong rate or did 

not keep proper records. Although the applicator would not be cited for drift, he or 

she could be cited for being “faulty, careless, and negligent” or for record-keeping 

violations. 

When complaints are associated with numerous possible violations, the most 

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

involving human exposure caused by drift from application by an unlicensed 

applicator would be categorized as human exposure even if the only final 

outcome of the case was a NOC for record keeping. However, in general, the 

initial complaint is a fairly reliable indicator of the final outcome of the case and 

reflects the concerns of the complainant. 

12 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Table 3. WSDA Nature of Initial Complaints by Number 

Animal, bird exposure 5 

Direct 11 

Drift 42 

Exam 1 

SPI/WDO* 8 

Human Exposure -drift 28 

Human Exposure-Direct 5 

Storage, Containers 5 

License 23 

Misuse 29 

Notification, Posting 7 

Product 1 

Records 4 

Water contamination 3 

*Structural Pest Inspection/Wood Destroying Organism 

Figure 2. Initial Complaints by Category 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 13
Drift and Direct Human Exposure 

In 2008, WSDA received 42 general complaints about drift plus 28 complaints 

specifically about human exposure due to drift. Of the 28 human exposure drift 

complaints, it was determined there was some evidence of exposure in fourteen 

cases, although two appeared to be odor only. Action was taken on seventeen 

cases, but not necessarily for the drift complaint. 

Five Human Exposure cases were complaints about possible direct exposure. 

Three of these were determined as having evidence of exposure and action was 

taken on all three. A Warning Letter was issued on one although there was not 

conclusive evidence of exposure. Fifteen of the Human Exposure cases were 

related to agricultural applications, action was taken on ten. Two of these ten 

cases were exposure to fumigant applications and are detailed later in this report. 

Eighteen were non agriculture applications with action taken on eleven. 

Table 4. Drift and Human Exposure 

Number of Complaints Complaints Verified 

Drift 42 - 

To Property 20 7 

To Crop/bees 13 10 

To Ornamentals 6 3 

To Car/Road 3 0 

Human Exposure 33 - 

From Drift 28 14 

From Direct 5 3 

For the 42 general drift cases, 29 were complaints about drift to property, 

ornamentals or vehicles, and 11 were complaints about drift to a conventional 

agricultural crop or pasture. Two additional cases were specifically about 

pesticide drift to an organic crop (Table 4). Pesticides moving off-target to 

people, crops or property appears to be one of the major reasons 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, 

or the person was concerned about possible drift rather than an actual exposure. 

Nonagricultural complaints from actual applications generally concerned damage 

to ornamentals from commercial applications or from a neighbor’s application, 

rather than human exposure. 

14 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Non-licensed individuals and misuse are two other areas where WSDA received 

numerous complaints (Figure 2). In 2008, WSDA received 23 complaints about 

improper or no licensing and 29 complaints about direct misapplications or other 

types of misuse. The number of complaints specific to faulty SPIs continue to 

drop, with eight complaints investigated (in addition to complaints about improper 

SPI licenses or records). 

There was one reported bee kill complaint for 2008. An insecticide was alleged to 

have drifted on leaf cutter bees. The complainant settled with the applicator and 

the investigation was dropped. 

For the purposes of the PIRT report in classifying complaints, actions that the 

agency took may not be sufficient to determine the scope of actual pesticide 

incidents. For drift, WSDA needs evidence such as residue, symptoms, or actual 

observation to decide if drift had occurred or not. Even if drift was verified, the 

agency may not be able to take action; for example, if the source of the drift 

could not be proven. The number of verified drift cases may give a better idea of 

areas that are problems. 

For 2008, the initial complaint was compared to actions taken by the department 

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

was valid. However, 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. In 2008, 105 (61%) cases had the original 

complaint verified (i.e., the complaint was valid). 

Action was taken on 108 cases. One case was referred to the US Department of 

Agriculture. The percent of cases where action was taken on the original 

complaint appears to be leveling off around 60 percent each year. There are 

fewer complaints about damage that later are resolved as due to drought or 

insects than in the initial years of this report. This may reflect that people are 

better able to recognize pesticide damage as opposed to damage due to drought 

or insects or that damage overall is less frequent. It may also mean people have 

a better understanding of agency roles for enforcement. This means that the 

agency is able to better use resources by investigating valid complaints instead 

of responding to complaints about issues other than pesticides. 

Application Methods 

In 2008, WSDA received 19 complaints about aerial applications, 99 complaints 

about ground applications, 50 complaints about items other than an application 

(for example, structural inspections), and 4 complaints where the application 

method was undetermined or unknown. 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 15
Violations 

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

federal laws or rules has occurred. During 2008, 63 percent of WSDA complaint 

investigations resulted in some type of violation. Most violations were not severe 

in nature (Table 5) 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. 

o Forestry cases are listed separately and represent incidents that occur in 

forest tree production. 

• Commercial/industrial: Incidents by licensed operators making applications to 

offices, restaurants, homes, and landscapes. 

• SPI: A change in law established a separate definition for a license for this 

work. Replaces the previous WDO incident count. No pesticide applications 

are made. 

• Residential: Includes any application of a pesticide in a residential 

environment by the homeowner, resident, or neighbor. 

• Rights of way: 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. 

• Schools – Incidents occurring on public or private school grounds. 

Table 5 shows complaints with violations by type of activity from 2004 through 

2008. 

 

16 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Table 5. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2004 – 2008* 

Activity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Agricultural 42 39 42 33 33 

Commercial/Industrial 17 36 25 33 30 

Structural/Wood Destroying 22 8 28 10 19 

Residential (non commercial) 5 4 12 5 12 

Right of Way 5 5 4 5 3 

School - - - - 7 

Forestry - - - - 2 

Other 31 21 26 18 2 

Total Violations 122 113 137 104 108 

*For 2008, Licenses and records were included in the industry in which the complaint occurred 

and other is for those items not in a particular industry. Also, incidents in forestry and schools 

were separated out. 

Figure 3. WSDA Violations by Type of Activity, 2008 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Agriculture

Commercial/Inductrail

Structural/WDO

Residential

Right of Way

School

Forestry

Other

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

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

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

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

the validity and severity of pesticide incidents. 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 17
Type of License in Complaints with Violations 

In 2008, WSDA licensed about 5,200 commercial applicators and operators and 

11,900 private applicators. WSDA also issued about 8,800 other individual 

license types for a total of over 25,900 licenses. Although WSDA licenses fewer 

commercial applicators than private applicators, commercial applicators make 

many more applications per licensee and more applications on land not owned 

by the applicator. This increases the probability of complaints for commercial 

applicators. Further information about WSDA license types is available in 

Appendix D. 

In 2008, commercial applicators were involved in 55 complaints with 39 violations 

(Figure 4). Private applicators were involved in 17 complaints with ten violations. 

Unlicensed applicators were involved in 52 complaints with 42 violations. 

Figure 4. WSDA Type of Licensee Involved in Cases with and without 

Violations, 2008 

10

16

7

5

0

14

10

1

42

39

10

7

9

0

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Unlicensed

Commercial

Private Applicator

Public Operator

Structural Pest

Not Applicable

Unknown

Referred

No Violations

Violations

18 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Agricultural Complaints 

In agriculture, most complaints with violations involve pesticides applied to 

orchards. This is not unexpected, as orchards tend to be located in more 

populous areas in the eastside of the state and may be on smaller acreages 

intermixed with other crops, housing, and heavily traveled roads. This increases 

the potential for complaints about possible drift. In agriculture, drift complaints are 

approximately 75 percent of the violation cases. The most frequent agricultural 

complaints in 2008 were from applications to orchards drifting on property or 

other crops (6) and drift to people (6). There were an equal number of violations 

about drift from applications to wheat (6). Drift from other crops to a crop (5) and 

to people (3) were the other reasons for complaints that had violations. After 

investigation, other reasons than the original complaint for assessing violations 

may be determined by WSDA. 

Non-Agricultural Complaints 

In 2008, investigations due to improper or no license, recordkeeping and 

notification were the most frequent non-agricultural complaints (27). Inspections 

for Wood Destroying Organisms were also common (12). Generally, the 

complainant felt that the inspector overlooked conditions conducive to further 

structural damage. The most frequent type of violation cited by WSDA was failure 

to obtain the proper license type for the application (17). There were 12 

complaints with violations about pesticides contacting a person and 20 

complaints about pesticides contacting off-target property. 

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

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

Applicators also must be aware of the need for licenses, especially for Wood 

Destroying Organism inspections and that they must be licensed in the proper 

category especially if they are making commercial applications. Some violations 

may reflect the transient nature of employment or lack of applicator training and 

some, particularly for SPIs, may reflect willful fraud. Economic pressure to sell 

real estate may encourage inspectors to overlook possible wood-destroying 

organism conditions. The number of preventable violations points to the 

continuing need for a strong agency enforcement program. Given that the 

estimated number of applications is in the hundreds of thousands, the number of 

complaints directed to the department for serious offenses is relatively small. 

 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 19
Cases Involving Children 

In 2008, children were involved directly or indirectly in ten cases. 

Table 6. Cases Involving Children 2008 

Case No. Summary Pesticide Action 

5 School personnel applied lice treatment to 

student’s clothes. Three students reported ill. permethrin NOI 

10 Family feels ill since 2007 after moving near 

orchard. Information only None NAI 

11 Students in greenhouse not notified of 

application. No health symptoms. herbicides NOC 

12 School did not notify of applications. herbicides NOC 

15 Children at daycare drifted on by landscape 

application. No health symptoms. 

Copper, mineral 

oil NOC 

40 Drift to property from orchard. Can smell and 

taste. Concern about son. No health symptoms. sulfur NOC 

44 Student touched sidewalk where herbicide 

applied. No health symptoms. 

Glyphosate 

dicamba 

2,4-D 

NOI 

97 Child petted dogs that had contact with 

herbicides. No health symptoms. 

Picloram 

2,4-D Warning letter 

110 

Aerial spray for mosquitoes drifted on 

campground. No health symptoms. Applicator did 

notify campground operator. 

malathion NAI 

162 Fumigation drift metam sodium NOI –see 

case example 

Severity of Reported Complaints 

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

Table 7 gives a detailed description of each rating. As in previous years, the 

majority of complaints were assigned a severity rating of “2” or less. 

 

20 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Table 7. Severity Rating of WSDA Complaint Cases, 2004 – 2008 Rating 

2003 – 2007 Criteria 

Rating 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Criteria 

0 26 

14.5%

29 

15%

21 

10%

29 

16%

18 

11%

Problem not due to pesticides and/or no 

cause determined; Structural Pest 

Inspection with no violations. 

1 65 

32.5%

77 

40%

63 

30%

54 

31%

67 

39%

Pesticides involved, no residue, no 

symptoms occurred; possible pesticide 

problem, not substantiated; issues 

involving records, registration, posting, 

notification (multiple chemical 

sensitivity) or licensing; DOH classified 

"unlikely" or "insufficient information.” 

2 83 

41.5%

54 

28%

92 

45%

57 

32%

52 

30%

Residue found, no health symptoms 

(human, animal); health symptoms not 

verified; multiple minor violations; off 

label use; worker protection violations; 

PPE violations with no health 

symptoms; plants with temporary or 

superficial damage only; Structural Pest 

Inspection faulty inspections; DOH 

classified "possible.” 

3 18 

9%

16 

8%

12 

6%

25 

14%

21 

12%

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.” 

4 8 

4%

17 

9%

14 

7%

10 

5%

12 

7%

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 0 0 4 

2%

2 

1%

1 

1%

Veterinary or hospital care overnight or 

longer; physician diagnosed children's 

illness as caused by pesticides; animal 

death due to pesticides; significant 

environmental damage; DOH classified 

"definite.” 

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

Total 200 193 206 177 171 (plus one case referred) 

 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 21
In 2008, of the 12 cases with a severity rating of 4, seven were issued Notices of 

Intent (NOI). Three were drift from applications to wheat. Two were from 

applications from contaminated tanks damaging plants. One was from a 

fumigation application drifting to persons. One was an application to mint drifting 

on a person. For the remaining five cases, Notices of Correction (NOC) were 

issued for damage to onions where no source could be determined but an NOC 

was issued on records, and an NOC was issued for improper use of a 

rodenticide. No action was taken on the remaining two cases as one was an 

accidental discharge and a source could not be proven on the other. 

The case with a severity rating of five is detailed below. This case is similar to the 

corn residue fumigation case 166 -2008 that was given a severity rating of four 

except for the length of hospital stays. There is some question regarding the 

possible health effect on a baby but this has not been resolved as of the date of 

this report. 

Case 162-2008 – Severity Rating 5 

In October, 2008, a licensed Private Applicator applied metam sodium through a 

center pivot irrigation system to an approximately 150 acre field of corn residue. 

The field was to be planted at a later date. Thirteen people, including seven 

under the age of eighteen, went to the hospital. Eleven were treated for 

symptoms of headaches and nausea. Later that day, six more individuals in the 

area complained of odor or felt ill. (A newborn baby had a fever and was taken to 

the hospital the following day.) A first responder from the fire department went to 

the site and noticed what he termed as inversion conditions. He noticed a strong 

odor and experienced eye irritation. The houses and building where the people 

were exposed were approximately 250 feet from the edge of the treated field. 

After investigation by both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of 

Health, it was found that the applicator had: 

• applied during inversion conditions without taking precautions; 

• did not post the field correctly; 

• did not have the correct backflow prevention protection on the irrigation 

system; 

• did not continuously monitor the application, and; 

• did not shut off the end gun or corner systems during some periods of the 

application. 

These violations led to the exposure and illness of nineteen individuals. The 

Department of Health classified the exposure as “definite” for three persons and 

“probable” for sixteen. 

The case is currently in litigation. 

22 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Case 166-2008 

A similar case, 166-2008, also involved an October application of metam sodium 

to a field of corn residue by a center-point irrigation system. The application was 

made by a licensed Commercial Applicator. This field was a 133 acre circle. Four 

individuals were present and three reported respiratory symptoms and an odor. 

The fourth person was unavailable to be interviewed. One person was taken to 

the hospital for treatment of symptoms. 

Eight fields, all within 1.25 miles or less of the complainant’s home, had been 

treated with fumigants during a five day period prior to this incident. This 

application was 54 feet from the house at the closest point. The individual treated 

at the hospital had been working in her garden for two hours about one-half mile 

from the application. The Department of Health classified the exposure as two 

“probable” and two “insufficient information” (not available or did not wish to be 

interviewed). 

After investigation, the Department of Agriculture found that the application was: 

• made during inversion conditions; 

• allowed to contact persons through drift; 

• applied without taking precautions to seal the soil when odor was noticed; 

and 

• applied without proper backflow prevention devices; which led to the 

exposures. 

This case is currently in litigation. 

Case 63-2008 – Azinphos-methyl Exposure 

Five field workers were exposed to an application of azinphos-methyl in May, 

2008. The individuals were working in a new cherry planting and the application 

was to an adjacent cherry orchard. The application was made with an air blast 

sprayer by an individual working under the supervision of a licensed Private 

Applicator. All five workers reported illness symptoms and eventually sought 

medical care. The Department of Health classified all the exposures as 

“probable.” 

After investigation, it was determined that the pesticide was not used in 

accordance with labeling by allowing it to contact unprotected workers and that 

there were violations of the WPS, WAC 16-233. 

The case is in litigation. 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 23
Type of Pesticide Involved 

In 2008, herbicides were involved in 78 complaints and insecticides in 22 

complaints. There were relatively fewer complaints about other pesticides such 

as fungicides (10), fumigants (3), Growth Regulators (3) and rodenticides (2). 

This difference may be because these products are used far more frequently, 

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. 

Overall, complaints about applications in 2008 continue to show a greater variety 

of pesticides than seen in the early years of the PIRT report. There were three 

complaints about azinphos-methyl and two complaints about endosulfan drift. In 

addition, there were two complaints about metam sodium drift. These three 

products are labeled as “Danger/Poison.” Complaint numbers for these products 

have been tracked closely because of their toxicity. The azinphos-methyl 

complaints were a human exposure drift complaint involving five farmworkers 

exposed to a cherry application, a drift from a conventional orchard to a organic 

orchard and a drift from an orchard to property. The endosulfan cases were a 

drift from an orchard to property and a direct contact with spray from an orchard 

at a residence near the application site. The metam sodium cases were drift from 

applications to corn residue to residential areas with numerous people involved. 

NOIs were issued for the endosulfan and metam sodium incidents, an NOC and 

two NOIs were issued for the azinphos-methyl incidents. Complaints on 

azinphos-methyl and endosulfan continue to be minimal and are anticipated to 

become even fewer as use of these products lessens. The use of azinphosmethyl will be discontinued in 2012. 

Two serious incidents occurred with the drift of metam sodium from a fumigant 

application to a field with corn residues. These incidents were described earlier in 

this report (Pages 22 and 23). 

Based on the numbers of different products involved in incidents and on 

information received from educators and commodity associations, applicators 

appear to be using more pest-specific products with a greater diversity of active 

ingredients and placing less reliance on broad-spectrum pest control products. 

This change increases the spectrum of products involved in complaints and 

results in fewer complaints about only one product - except for 2,4-D and 

glyphosate. These products probably have a high frequency of use. 

24 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Herbicide drift constitutes the greatest number of complaints. Two herbicides, 

2,4-D (24 complaints) and glyphosate (30 complaints), were again the most 

frequently reported active ingredients in 2008 complaint investigations (Table 8). 

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

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

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

products or complaints about drift from an unspecified or unknown pesticide. 

Table 8. Active Ingredients Most Commonly Involved in WSDA Complaints 

2008 

Active Ingredient Number 

Glyphosate 30 

2,4-D 24 

Triclopyr 9 

Dicamba 8 

Sulfur 6 

MCPA 5 

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 and people may be less 

worried about unknown effects. These products also have minimal health effects 

and minimal detrimental effects on non-target plants and property. 

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 25
Enforcement Actions 

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

or federal laws or rules has occurred. Generally, first offenders or minor 

infractions are given a NOC 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. Cases that may be taken to court are listed as 

NOI. The violator may pay the penalty as stated, or the violator has the right to 

appeal and take the case to court. The court may impose the fine and/or license 

suspension given by the agency or it might dismiss the case. As cases appealed 

may take several years to settle, all cases are listed as NOI in order to complete 

this report. Final settlement of these cases can be determined by contacting 

WSDA. 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 NOC was issued, the action would be listed as one NOC. However, if 

more than one type of corrective action was taken, such as a NOC and a NOI 

(which could happen if several applicators were involved in the same 

investigation), both types are listed. 

The corrective actions taken in 2008 are listed in Table 9. (See Appendix D for 

definitions of the Enforcement Actions.) 

Table 9. WSDA Agency Actions, 2004 – 2008 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

No Action Indicated 76 77 69 73 63 

Verbal Warning 1 6 5 11 5 

Warning Letter 4 9 12 5 13 

Notice of Correction 98 76 93 60 72 

Notice of Intent 20 23 22 26 18 

Referred 2 2 0 2 1 

Total Actions 201 193 206 177 172 

26 Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Agriculture I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 27

Fines and License Suspensions Levied in 2008 

In addition to license suspensions, the agency assessed $33,030 in fines for 22 

court actions during 2008. (Note: because of the length of time to process cases 

through legal procedures, about half of these incidents occurred prior to 2008 

and not all 2008 cases have been finalized.) The maximum fine was $11,300 

against a company that had failed to provide adequate safety for workers when 

pesticides were used at its orchards. The inspector found that there were 

numerous WPS violations and that this was a repeat offence. The minimum fine 

collected was $0 in two instances. In one case, the individual is unable to apply 

for a license for two years as a result of trying to cheat when taking an exam. In 

the other case, the individual had his commercial operator license suspended for 

30 days for falsifying records and other information for a house treatment. The 

average fine was $1,376. Six fines exceeded $1,000. 

Except for the two year denial of a license, the maximum license suspension was 

30 days (case detailed above). Another case, with a license suspension of 21 

days and a $3,200 fine, involved damage by an aerial applicator who damaged 

neighboring crops and residential landscapes during several herbicide 

applications. Most of the remaining license suspensions were for periods of two 

to seven days. There were a total of 13 license suspension actions. 

Other Agencies Involved 

Washington State Department of Agriculture works in cooperation with other 

state and local agencies in collecting evidence and testimony. Cooperating 

agencies may independently report their involvement in these cases or they may 

do no further independent investigation. 

In 2008, WSDA consulted with other state, federal and local agencies, including 

local police, in 48 investigations. The agencies most frequently consulted were: 

Department of Health (19); Ecology (9); Local police (9); Local health districts (4); 

and EPA (4). One case was referred to the US Department of Agriculture.
Ecology 

Washington State Department of Ecology’s summary of pesticide-related Spill Program 

complaints, Toxic Cleanup Program and Aquatic Pesticide Permits, and monitoring 

activities during 2008. 

Background 

Multiple programs within the Department of Ecology are involved in pesticiderelated activities. Ecology works with National Marine Fisheries Service and other 

federal and state agencies to reduce the impacts of pesticide applications to 

salmonids under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The agency participates 

in an interagency Urban Pesticide committee, the Washington State Healthy 

Schools Initiative, and other projects. Ecology is responsible for oversight of 

contaminated areas requiring cleanup or monitoring, including areas 

contaminated with pesticides. Ecology’s pollution prevention and sustainability 

efforts emphasize prevention of the overuse and misuse of pesticides. 

This report presents data for four programs: Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and 

Response Program; Toxics Cleanup Program; Water Quality Program; and the 

Environmental Assessment Program. These programs track data on pesticide 

spills, on the cleanup of pesticide contamination, and on the use of pesticides to 

protect water quality, and monitor the impacts of pesticides to water quality. 

Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (Spills) 

Program: Pesticide-Related Incidents 

The Spills Program responds to pesticide-related complaints and is responsible 

for ensuring that damage from a spill is contained as much as possible and 

cleaned up as quickly as possible. Ecology uses the data from pesticide-related 

spills and complaints to identify where additional education is necessary to 

reduce the impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment. 

Summaries of the Spills Program pesticide-related complaints for 2008 are 

provided in Appendix C. 

In 2008 there were 9 pesticide-related complaints involving threats to air, water, 

and/or soil. Spills 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. Investigations are 

initiated for complaints requiring field work, research, coordination with other 

agencies, or technical assistance. 

Ecology responded within 24 hours in 100 percent of the 9 complaints in 2008. 

Ecology investigated all of the nine complaints. 

 

Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 29
Of the 9 pesticide-related complaints received by Ecology during 2008: 

• 2 occurred in the agricultural environment. 

• 4 involved commercial or industrial activities. 

• 6 were reported by private citizens. 

• 3 resulted in potential exposure to humans. 

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

Table 10 lists the types of pesticide-related complaints received from 2001 to 

2008. Complaints can involve more than one category of concern. 

Table 10. Ecology Pesticide-Related Complaints, 2001-2008* 

Type of complaint* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Pesticides threatening ground or 

surface water 11 23 13 10 23 10 8 1 

Pesticide disposal or waste 

concern 14 12 12 6 2 9 6 4 

Spills and fires 1 12 5 10 12 5 9 3 

Unsafe pesticide storage or 

handling 6 11 10 3 5 10 3 3 

*Complaints may involve more than one category. 

After Ecology Spills staff responds to and stabilize the initial emergency, the case 

is closed if it is determined that there are no long-term impacts. If there are longterm impacts, the case is referred to another program within the agency. When 

indicated, Ecology refers complaints to other state or local agencies. In 2008, the 

Spill Program referred seven complaints involving pesticides to Tribes, 

Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, city and 

county public works departments, Fish and Wildlife, and WSDA. Ecology 

immediately notified DOH of two incidents where humans were potentially 

exposed to pesticides. 

Toxics Cleanup Program: Contaminated Sites Containing 

Pesticides 

Ecology is responsible for oversight of contaminated areas requiring cleanup or 

monitoring. These sites may have been contaminated from leaking underground 

petroleum tanks, historic or current pesticide use, spills, or industrial processes. 

When a contaminated site is added to Ecology’s cleanup list, it remains on the 

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

list for more than one year. Maps of pesticide-contaminated sites may be found 

in Appendix E. 

 

30 Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
In 2008 Ecology added seven pesticide-contaminated sites to the cleanup list 

bringing the total to 239 pesticide contaminated sites (Table 11). Of the sites 

added in 2008; five were within Yakima County, four of which were within the city 

of Yakima; and two were in Thurston and Grant Counties. 

Of the seven pesticide-contaminated sites identified in 2008, Ecology designated 

four sites as active and undergoing cleanup, two as awaiting cleanup, and one as 

a non-active (remediated) site that was cleaned up or required no further action. 

As of 2008 there were a grand total of 239 pesticide-contaminated sites 

statewide. Of those, 75 sites remained active in the cleanup process (awaiting 

clean-up) at year’s end, there was no further action needed at 83 sites, and 81 

sites were awaiting further investigation. Sites with no further action needed are 

considered clean in accordance with the cleanup standard for that site, or these 

sites have institutional controls (cleanup isn’t possible so restrictive covenants 

are placed on the property), or these sites are in monitoring status. Sites in 

monitoring status are considered clean but one to two years of monitoring is 

required to ensure cleanup occurred. 

Table 11. Status of Pesticide-Contaminated Sites Statewide, 2008 

Pesticide-contaminated sites 2008

Sites undergoing cleanup at year’s end 75 

Sites with no further action needed 83 

Sites awaiting further investigation 81 

Total pesticide-contaminated sites for the year 239

Water Quality Program: Aquatic Pesticide Permits 

Ecology is delegated by the EPA to implement all federal water pollution control 

laws and regulations through the state’s laws. These include the issuance of 

permits for the use of aquatic pesticides to protect water quality. The permitting 

process ensures that chemicals are applied sparingly and properly, thereby 

reducing the potential for exposure to natural resources and people. The data 

below is Ecology’s pesticide use data in or near aquatic ecosystems. 

Aquatic Plant and Algae Management National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit 

Table 12 contains the pesticide use reporting information for pesticides applied in 

lakes and ponds under Ecology’s Aquatic Plant permit in 2008. 

 

Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 31
Table 12. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management Permit, 2008 

Product Pounds of active ingredient used

2, 4-D 9,638 

Aluminum Sulfate 287,782 

Calcium Hydroxide 90,058 

Diquat 2,866 

Endothall 1,946 

Fluridone 322 

Glyphosate 194 

Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate 852 

Triclopyr TEA 2,174 

Total pounds of active ingredient applied 395,832

Oyster Grower’s NPDES Permit 

The Oyster Grower’s NPDES Permit is an individual permit issued directly to the 

Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association. It allows the use of 

carbaryl, an insecticide in the carbamate family, to control burrowing shrimp in 

oyster beds. The data for 2005 through 2008 are shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Oyster Growers Permit, Carbaryl Usage, 2005 - 2008 

Year Acres treated Pounds of active ingredient used

2005 576 3,629 

2006 593 4,741 

2007 555 4,438 

2008 458 3,660 

In 2007 and 2008 the Washington State Department of Agriculture issued an 

experimental use permit for use of imidacloprid. Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid, 

which is a class of neuro-active insecticides modeled after nicotine. In 2008 35 

pounds of the active ingredient for Imidacloprid were applied experimentally to 70 

acres in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. 

Noxious Weed NPDES Permit 

The Noxious Weed NPDES Permit is issued to government agencies, 

homeowners, lake-advocacy groups, and marinas to treat fresh and saltwater 

environments for noxious, non-native plant species. The treated areas are 

located throughout Washington State. The product totals are listed in Table 14. 

 

32 Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Table 14. Noxious Weed NPDES Permit, 2008 

Product Pounds of active ingredient used

2, 4-D 1,555 

Diquat 287 

Endothall 34 

Glyphosate 23,869 

Imazapyr 1,734 

Triclopyr 199 

Total pounds of active ingredient applied 27,678

Fish Management NPDES Permit 

The Fish Management NPDES Permit is issued to the Department of Fish and 

Wildlife to apply rotenone for fish management in Washington lakes. In 2008, 

nine lake systems throughout the state were treated with a total of 580 pounds of 

active ingredient under this permit (Table 15). 

Lakes and streams are chosen for rotenone application to remove undesirable 

fish species that are adversely impacting the growth and/or survival of preferred 

species (such as stunted populations of the exotic yellow perch that compete 

with rainbow trout fry; predation by exotic smallmouth bass on native westslope 

cutthroat trout, etc.), or are adversely impacting habitats of fish and wildlife 

populations (such as the degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetation by 

carp). The decision to treat with rotenone is made after all other alternatives to 

management of the undesirable species have been considered. 

Table 15. Fish Management NPDES Permit, 2008 

Water Body Pounds of active ingredient used

Byron Ponds 46 

Cee Cee ah Creek 3 

North Potholes 60 

TD2 Ponds 26 

Frater Lake 52 

Lake Ellen 146 

Hatch Lakes 77 

Williams Lake 133 

Starzman Lake 36 

Total pounds of active ingredient applied 579

Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 33
Irrigation District NPDES Permit 

The Irrigation District NPDES Permit is issued for products to control weeds and 

algae in irrigation systems. The permit was issued to 16 of the 97 Washington 

irrigation districts during the 2008 application season. The 16 districts include 81 

percent of the total irrigated land in Washington. The amounts of active 

ingredients applied in irrigation systems are listed in Table 16. 

Table 16. Irrigation District NPDES Permit, 2008 

Product Pounds of active ingredient used 

Acrolein 175,436 

Copper products 92,511 

Fluoridone 392 

Green Clean (sodium carbonate) 345 

Xylene 41,003 

Total lbs. of active ingredient applied 309,687

Mosquito General NPDES Permit 

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

mosquitoes in Washington State rapidly increased. Ecology allows mosquito 

control districts and government agencies to apply for limited agent status under 

statewide blanket permit coverage issued to Washington State Department of 

Health. There were no violations of the mosquito general NPDES permit in 2008. 

Table 17 summarizes pesticide totals statewide for the 2008 application season. 

Table 17. Mosquito General NPDES Permit, 2008 

Product type Pounds of active ingredient used 

Bacillus spaericus (H-5a5b) 294 

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) 27,761 

Methoprene (all formulations) 860 

Monomolecular surface film 62 

Paraffinic white mineral oil 1,697 

Total lbs. of active ingredient applied 30,674

Surface Water Monitoring 

Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing 

Streams 

The Departments of Ecology and Agriculture have a cooperative agreement for 

an ongoing study to investigate pesticide occurrence in salmonid-bearing 

streams. The focus of the study is to characterize pesticide concentrations in 

select salmon-bearing streams during a typical pesticide-use period. 

34 Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Monitoring areas and time frames are: 

• Thornton Creek, located in the Cedar-Sammamish basin represents an 

urban land-use area. Two to three sites have been sampled on this creek 

since 2003. 

• Four subbasins of the lower Skagit-Samish basin were selected to represent 

western Washington agricultural land-use practices. The Samish River, Big 

Ditch, Browns Slough, and Indian Slough have been sampled since 2006. 

• Three subbasins of the lower Yakima basin were selected to represent 

eastern Washington irrigated agricultural land-use practices. Marion Drain, 

Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek have been sampled since the 

start of the project in 2003. 

• Five subbasins of the Wenatchee basin and the Entiat basin were selected to 

represent central Washington agricultural tree fruit practices. The Wenatchee 

River, Mission Creek, Peshastin Creek, and Brender Creek in WRIA 45; and 

the Entiat River in WRIA 46 have been sampled since 2007. 

Surface water samples are analyzed for approximately 160 currently registered 

and historical-use pesticides and degradate compounds. Conventional water 

quality parameters measured include total suspended solids, pH, conductivity, 

dissolved oxygen, temperature, and streamflow. More information on this study 

and publications can be found at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/toxics/pesticides.htm. 

A report on the 2006-2008 monitoring results can be found at Ecology’s website 

at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1003008.html. 

 

Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 35
36 Ecology I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report

Other Pesticide Related Water Quality Studies 

• Copper is used as an herbicide in irrigation canals. In November 2007, 

Ecology began a sampling project to assess the impacts of copper on 

receiving water in the Wenatchee and mid-Columbia basins. Sediment and 

water column sampling was conducted during the 2008 irrigation season. A 

final report on this study can be found at Ecology’s website at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0903005.pdf. 

• In 2008 Ecology conducted monitoring for a one year study to evaluating 

chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and total suspended 

solids in the Yakima River. The purpose of the monitoring study is to: 1) 

assess the effectiveness of the 1997 lower Yakima River Suspended 

Sediment and DDT total maximum daily load study; 2) identify sources and 

quantify loadings of chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, TSS, and turbidity; 3) 

recommend numerical targets that will result in the river and its tributaries 

meeting water quality standards; and 4) propose wasteload and load 

allocations for sources, as appropriate. A draft report on this study can be 

found at Ecology’s website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0903036.html.
Department of Health 

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

during 2008. 

Background 

The Department of Health Pesticide Program investigates reports of illnesses 

related to pesticide exposure. The agency uses data collected from these 

investigations to identify public health problems and develop strategies to prevent 

human exposure to pesticides. Federal and other state agencies, local 

government, advocacy groups, and legislators use the data for similar purposes. 

This Department of Health report on 2008 pesticide-related data describes 

sources of case reports, classification and severity of investigated cases, and the 

number and location of health investigations. The Department of Health presents 

data on occupational, agricultural, and non-agricultural cases here. The report 

also presents findings from an analysis of the factors that contribute to pesticiderelated illness among agricultural workers. Conclusions and recommendations 

can be found at the end of this report. 

Sources of Case Reports 

The Department of Health receives reports of suspected pesticide illness events 

from numerous sources, including Washington Poison Center, (WAPC) the 

Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) Claims Administration Program, the 

Washington State Department of Agriculture, (WSDA) health care providers, and 

others. More than one agency may report the same illness event. An event may 

involve exposure to one or more people. Each individual exposure is investigated 

by Pesticide Program staff members as a separate case. 

Figure 5 shows the number of individual cases investigated, and the proportion of 

report sources, per case, based on the first report received by the state 

Department of Health. 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 37
Figure 5. Source of Case Reports, 2008* 

WAPC

139

45%

L&I

69

22%

WSDA

93

30%

Self, Family

3

1%

Other ‐ Local

Health

Jurisdiction,

HSEES

6

2%

n = 310 cases investigated

*Although some cases were reported by more than one agency or organization, DOH 

defines source by the first entity submitting the report to DOH.

Electronic reporting from WAPC provided approximately 45 percent of the total 

reports, more than any other source. WAPC reports include the bulk of health 

care provider reporting since providers are instructed by Department of Health 

officials to report suspected pesticide cases through the WAPC. The second 

highest report source was WSDA, reporting 30 percent of the cases. The L&I 

Workers’ Compensation claims unit provided 69 (22%) of first reports. 

Case Investigation Criteria 

Any single event that is reported may involve multiple people who experience 

pesticide illness. The Department of Health reviews all referred reports, and 

investigates those that meet the following criteria: 

• A pesticide exposure is reported. 

• Symptoms are reported. 

• At least one individual involved saw a health care provider. 

• The pesticide exposure occurred during the last three months. 

• The pesticide exposure occurred in Washington. 

• The pesticide exposure was neither a suicide nor homicide attempt. 

38 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
The Department of Health occasionally investigates cases of special 

circumstance even if all criteria are not met. Examples are unusual exposures to 

children, incidents involving multiple ill people, moderate to severe illness or 

injuries for which the individual did not seek health care, and cases referred by 

another state agency for co-investigation. Although many disinfectants are 

regulated as pesticides under federal law, Department of Health does not 

investigate disinfectant-related injury unless the product is specifically being used 

as a fungicide (e.g., sprayed on mold). 

Classification of Investigated Cases 

The Department of Health’s Pesticide Program investigators interview 

individuals, obtain pesticide application and medical records, and, at times, 

conduct field visits. Investigators use these data to determine the likelihood that 

reported symptoms are related to a pesticide exposure. Investigators classify 

cases using documentation of exposure and health effects, and evaluation of the 

causal relationship. Department of Health uses the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Case Classification System to 

distinguish between Definite, Probable, Possible (DPP). Other classification 

categories include Suspicious, Insufficient Information, and Unlikely cases 

(Appendix B). Minimum criteria for assignment to DPP classifications include 

symptoms are characteristic of known toxicological effects of the pesticide, and 

the time between exposure and symptom onset is consistent. Further description 

of DPP cases is provided in Table 18. 

Table 18. Classification Criteria of Definite, Probable, and Possible Cases 

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 by the individual or a health 

care provider. 

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 reports 

from case, witness, application, 

observation of residue or contamination, 

and →

Two or more post-exposure symptoms** 

are reported by the individual or a health 

care provider. 

*Signs are considered objective evidence of illness and are observable on examination by a health 

care provider (e.g. low heart rate, cough, rash, depressed cholinesterase activity). 

**Symptoms are considered subjective evidence of illness and may not be observable on examination 

by a health care provider (e.g. headache, nausea, dizziness).

 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 39
In 2008, investigators classified 252 (81%) of the 310 reported cases as DPP 

related to pesticide exposure. Figure 6 shows the classification of cases for 2008. 

Figure 6. Classification of Investigated Cases by Number and 

Percentage, 2008 

Definite

48

16%

Probable

90

29%

Possible

114

37%

Suspicious

4

1%

Unlikely

31

10%

Insufficient 

Information

22

7%

Asymptomatic

1

0%

DPP

252

82%

n=310

Number of Investigations 

During 2008, 213 reported events involving 310 cases (people) met the health 

case criteria and were investigated as suspected pesticide illnesses. Figure 7

shows the relative stability in the number of cases that annually meet health 

investigation criteria. The large number of cases relative to events in 2008 can be 

attributed to two agricultural drift events, one of which involved 19 cases and the 

other, 47 cases. 

40 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Figure 7. Health Events and Cases Investigated, 2004 – 2008 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Events Cases

Number of DPP Cases 

After investigation, cases were classified as to the likelihood that pesticide 

exposure contributed to the reported symptoms. In 2008, there were 161 events 

that involved 252 DPP cases. Of the 161 DPP events, 143 (89%) involved one 

case, eight (5%) involved two cases, five (3%) involved three cases, (1%) 

involved four and one (0.6%) involved five cases. The two large drift events 

mentioned previously involved 46 DPP cases out of 47 cases investigated, and 

19 DPP cases respectively, and accounted for a large portion (26%) of the DPP 

cases in 2008. 

Although there were fewer DPP pesticide-illness events overall in 2008 as 

compared to last year, (161 events in 2008 as compared to 181 DPP events in 

2007) the total number of DPP cases was higher this year (252) than in 2007 

(207) or previous years (149 in 2006; 188 in 2005; and 204 in 2004). Again, the 

two large drift events contributed to higher numbers of symptomatic people in 

2008. 

Numbers of DPP cases for the years 2004 through 2008 are shown in Table 19. 

 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 41
Table 19. DPP Case Classification, 2004 – 2008 

Classification 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Definite 63 49 21 36 48 

Probable 55 48 39 63 90 

Possible 86 91 89 108 114 

Total DPP Cases 204 188 149 207 252 

All Cases Reported 269 252 254 310 310 

Percent DPP 76% 75% 58% 67% 81% 

Percent Insufficient Information 14% 17% 22% 18% 7% 

Underreporting 

The number of DPP cases documented by Department of Health is an 

underestimate of the actual number of pesticide-related illness and injuries that 

occur in Washington each year. The Department of Health surveillance system 

captures mainly cases that seek medical care and for which the health care 

provider either calls WAPC and/or files an L&I industrial insurance claim. 

Many people with mild symptoms do not seek health care. WAPC data provides 

a limited measure of this. Most of the pesticide-related calls that WAPC reports to 

Department of Health through the Pesticide-Illness Electronic Reporting System 

(PIERS), are from people that did not seek health care. As such, they failed to 

meet criteria for investigation. Medical outcome of these calls were mostly coded 

by WAPC staff as “minor effect” or “not followed, minimal clinical effect possible.” 

Occupational cases in the data set may also be under-represented. Workplace 

exposures are generally reported through L&I, not WAPC. During focus group 

meetings with farm workers in the Yakima area in 2001, workers explained that 

they would not likely take time off from work to seek health care for mild to 

moderate symptoms. They are also unlikely to self report to a government 

agency, voicing concerns about possible risks to their job security3

. 

In addition, there is under-reporting from health care providers. 

• Providers may not recognize the symptoms as being pesticide-related. 

• Providers may not know to report. 

• Providers may decide that other clinical responsibilities take precedent. 

• The patient’s employer may be self-insured so claims would not be submitted 

to L&I. 

 

3

 See “Improving Data Quality in Pesticide Illness Surveillance” June 17, 2004, at 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/improving_data_quality_in_pesticide_illness_surveillance2004.pdf.

42 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Currently there is no good estimate of the extent of health care provider underreporting in Washington. In a Department of Health study4

 completed in 2004, 

pesticide illness surveillance captured about 60 percent of occupational illnesses 

that sought medical care in the Yakima area and were given a pesticide-specific 

diagnosis. Farming employers are primarily insured through L&I, so the 

percentage of capture of health care visits for occupational pesticide-related 

injuries may be relatively higher in this region. No state studies have been done 

to estimate the number of health care visits for urban residential pesticide 

exposures that go unreported. 

Passive surveillance programs never capture every case. Their strength is in 

capturing enough cases to understand what problems are occurring and why. 

The focus of the Department of Health pesticide illness monitoring is to collect 

data for targeted prevention. Although it is possible that this surveillance is 

missing significant cases, the program is documenting enough problem areas to 

be able to conduct prevention activities. 

Severity of Medical Outcome 

The Department of Health uses the NIOSH Severity Index to classify signs and 

symptoms associated with pesticide cases (Appendix B). The “mild” category 

includes symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, headache, 

dizziness, and skin or eye irritation. With mild severity cases, duration is relatively 

short: three days or less of time lost from work or normal activities. 

“Moderate” illness or injury includes signs and symptoms that 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 (altered heart rate), slurred speech, or asthma attack. For moderate 

cases, time lost from work or normal activities is usually three to five days. 

Cases are classified as “severe” when the illness or injury is considered life 

threatening; these cases typically require treatment or hospitalization to prevent 

death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to coma, cardiac arrest, 

renal failure, and/or respiratory depression. The individual often sustains 

substantial loss of time (more than five days) from regular work. 

“Death” classification indicates a fatality attributed to pesticide exposure. These 

are infrequently reported in the state health data set. Health surveillance 

excludes intentional pesticide exposures (i.e., suicide and homicide). 

 

4

 See previous footnote.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 43
Table 20 lists severity of medical outcomes for DPP cases from 2005 through 

2008. In 2008, 227 (90%) of the 252 DPP Health cases were classified as mild. 

Twenty three (9%) cases were classified as moderate. There were two (1%) 

severe cases. 

Table 20. Severity of Medical Outcome, 2005 – 2008 

Severity 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Low/Mild 161 (86%) 126 (85%) 181 (87%) 227 (90%) 

Moderate 26 (14%) 20 (13%) 26 (13%) 23 (9%) 

Severe 1 (0.5%) 2 (1%) 0 (0%) 2 (1%) 

Death 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

Total DPP Cases 188 149 207 252 

Figure 8. Type of Medical Care Sought, 2008 DPP Cases 

Physician's

Office/Clinic

98

39%

Emergency

Room Visit

109

43%

Hospital

Admission

3

1%

WAPC Referral

to HCP

10

4%

No Medical

Care Sought

25

10%

Unknown

2

1%

Other/EMT

5

2%

n=215 DPP cases that received medical care

Figure 8 shows the type of medical care sought for 2008 DPP cases. Of the 252 

DPP cases in 2008, 215 (85%) received medical care for their symptoms. The 

majority of these were seen in the emergency room or in a physician’s office or 

clinic. Five cases received care from an emergency medical technician (EMT) or 

other type of emergency health care professional. Three cases (1%) were 

hospitalized. WAPC referred ten cases (4%) to a health care provider, but they 

did not seek care. An additional 25 cases (10%) sought no medical care. The 

Department of Health investigated these cases because they were involved in 

events in which multiple people became ill, or because they had significant 

symptoms or were referred by another agency. 

44 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
In each of these instances there was enough information about the exposure and 

symptoms to warrant investigations. Type of medical care sought was unknown 

for two cases. 

The proportion of mildly to moderately ill people who sought health care in the 

Department of Health data set is skewed by the fact that the surveillance criteria 

selects for cases that sought health care. In fact, the larger data set from the 

WAPC shows that most people with mild symptoms do not seek health care. 

Location of Investigated Cases 

The state Department of Health tracks location of incidents in order to target 

prevention activities geographically. Table 21 lists the ten counties with the most 

reported cases. Of the 252 DPP cases, 216 (86%) came from these ten counties. 

69 percent of the state’s 6.5 million people reside in these ten counties. Table 22

lists these counties with the most reported cases adjusted for the population of 

those counties. 

Table 21. Top Ten Counties with the Most Reported DPP Cases, 2008 

County Agricultural NonAgricultural 

DPP 

Cases 

DPP Cases per 

100,000 Population Population* 

Grant 54 4 58 68.56 84,600 

King 0 35 35 1.86 1,884,200 

Pierce 1 25 26 3.23 805,400 

Franklin 22 3 25 35.61 70,200 

Yakima 17 3 20 8.48 235,900 

Snohomish 1 15 16 2.30 696,600 

Spokane 1 10 11 2.40 459,000 

Okanogan 6 4 10 24.94 40,100 

Benton 7 1 8 4.83 165,500 

Chelan 4 3 7 9.71 72,100 

*Population estimates are from Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, 

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/finalpop2008.xlm. 

Grant, King, and Pierce counties have the most reported DPP cases. However, 

when the county population is considered, King and Pierce fall out of the top ten 

counties with DPP cases because they are more heavily populated. 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 45
Rural counties with smaller populations appear to have the most DPP cases 

adjusted for population. When using both methods, the counties of Grant, 

Franklin, Yakima, Okanogan, and Chelan remain in the top ten. Similarly, using 

both methods for previous years, Franklin, Grant, Okanogan, and Yakima 

counties are in the top ten for DPP cases in 2007 and Chelan, Grant, and 

Yakima counties appear in 2006. 

Table 22. Top Ten Counties with the Most DPP Cases per 100,000 

Population, 2008 

County DPP Cases per 

100,000 Population DPP Cases Population

Grant 68.56 58 84,600 

Garfield 43.48 1 2,300 

Franklin 35.61 25 70,200 

Okanogan 24.94 10 40,100 

Columbia 24.39 1 4,100 

Skamania 18.69 2 10,700 

Adams 11.24 2 17,800 

Chelan 9.71 7 72,100 

Yakima 8.48 20 235,900 

Klickitat 4.98 1 20,100 

Agricultural vs. Non-Agricultural Cases 

Table 23 displays the distribution of cases defined as DPP by agricultural and 

non-agricultural setting from 2000 through 2008. 

Table 23. Annual Agricultural and Non-Agricultural DPP Cases, 2000 – 2008 

Year Agricultural Non-Agricultural Total Cases 

2000 113 (56%) 90 (44%) 203 

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 

2006 44 (30%) 105 (70%) 149 

2007 60 (29%) 147 (71%) 207 

2008 123 (49%) 129 (51%) 252 

46 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Agricultural cases occur when the pesticide application is intended for agricultural 

commodities such as fruit and field crops, nursery, livestock, and forest 

operations. Agricultural cases include exposure during pesticide handling, 

contact with drift or leaf residues from an agricultural application, and spills at 

agricultural storage facilities. Typical non-agricultural cases involve commercial 

and residential use of pesticides and include spills or splashes while opening and 

pouring pesticides, or wind blowing spray during the application. 

Seasonality 

Tracking the peak months of incidents helps with the timing of prevention 

education and outreach to health care providers on recognition and management 

of pesticide illness. And this tracking helps other organizations know when to 

plan their activities (i.e., employee training, environmental sampling in streams 

for pesticide run off). 

In 2008, 70 (28%) DPP cases occurred in April through June, and 115 (46%) 

occurred in July through September. Table 24 shows 2008 agricultural and nonagricultural DPP cases by season. 

Table 24. DPP Cases by Season of the Year, 2008 

Agricultural Non-Agricultural Total Cases 

January – March 3 19 22 

April – June 33 37 70 

July – September 64 51 115 

October – December 23 21* 44 

Unknown Exp Season 0 1** 1 

Total 123 129 252 

*Includes one case with exposure occurring in 2007 and investigation completed in 2008. 

**Includes 1 where “season exposed” was unknown. 

Age and Gender 

Thirty-five (14%) DPP cases involved children younger than eighteen years old. 

Fifteen of the children were under six years old, six were between ages six and 

11, and 14 were between 12 and 18. Below are case examples. 

• A one-year old had symptoms after an excessive application of insecticide 

foggers at his single wide mobile home. Three cans were activated inside 

and two underneath the home. Toys that were left out during fogging were 

not washed. The family re-entered the home after one hour and slept there 

that evening. (Severity: mild). 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 47
• A two-year old was sleeping in a tent when the tent was directly sprayed by 

an aerial application for mosquito control at 5:00 a.m. Campers were not 

notified of the application. (Severity: moderate). 

• A four-year old pulled a towel from his head over his face and off, during lice 

treatment, and received a chemical burn to the eye. (Severity: mild). 

• Three children ages nine, 12, and 13 developed health effects when a fogger 

was released in the basement of their home while they were upstairs. 

(Severity: mild). 

• A one-month old baby, five children ages six and under, and two teenagers 

(and their parents) experienced symptoms when light winds blew fumigant 

vapors toward their homes. A temperature inversion occurred during the 

application. Unaware of what they smelled, the residents did not vacate the 

area. (Severity: mild). 

Table 25 lists the age and gender of 2008 DPP occupational and nonoccupational cases. In 2008 as in previous years, more males (93) reported 

occupational exposures than females (37). Males and females were about 

equally represented in the non-occupational DPP cases, although this year 

males also represented more of the non-occupational DPP cases (63) than did 

females (58). 

Table 25. Occupational and Non-Occupational DPP Cases by Age and 

Gender, 2008 

Occupational Non-Occupational 

Age Female Male Female Male Total

0-5 0 0 5 10 15 

6-11 0 0 1 5 6 

12-17 1 1 5 7 14 

18-29 11 34 9 7 61 

30-49 18 45 19 14 96 

50+ 6 12 15 18 51 (+1*) 

Unknown age 1 1 4 2 8 

Total 37 93 58 63 252 

*Includes 1 case of a 61 year old male whose occupational status was “unknown.” 

 

48 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness 

There were a total of 130 DPP cases that involved a pesticide-illness resulting 

from exposures while on-the-job in 2008. This represents 52 percent of all DPP 

cases investigated, slightly more than last year. 

A single large drift event involved 47 farm workers; 46 of these were classified as 

DPP cases. Three of the 19 cases exposed in a separate event involving 

fumigant drift were occupational-related, the remaining 16 were not. These 

events are described in more depth later in this report. 

Figure 9. Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Occupational DPP Cases, 

2004 – 2008 

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Agricultural Non‐Agricultural

Agricultural Pesticide Drift Events 

Table 26 shows the number of drift events and cases (people) associated with 

agricultural applications for 2004 through 2008. The annual number of drift cases 

tends to vary as a single event can affect multiple people. The number of 

agricultural events has remained fairly steady in the last five years, though it 

dropped off slightly this year. Drift to workers usually, but not always, involves 

agricultural workers. Drift to non-workers generally involves people in their 

homes, driving on roads, visiting parks, or at schools. 

 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 49
Table 26. DPP Cases of Agricultural Drift to Workers and Others, 

2004 – 2008 

Year Events DPP Cases Occupational Non-Occupational

2004 13 16 5 11 

2005 13 30 20 10 

2006 12 16 9 7 

2007 13 21 12 9 

2008 13 83 62 21 

Total 64 166 108 58 

In 2008, there were 83 DPP pesticide-related illness cases involving drift from 

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. The Department of Health classified these as 

definite (7), probable (34), and possible (42). In 2008, there were more drift 

exposures than any other single type of exposure for both occupational (62) and 

non-occupation (21) classifications (Table 27). Drift accounted for the source of 

exposure in 67 percent of the total DPP agricultural related cases. Direct spray 

during application was second largest source of exposure 20 (16%) of the DPP 

agricultural-related cases. 

Table 27. Agricultural Occupational and Non-Occupational DPP Cases by 

Source, 2008 

Source of Pesticide Exposure Occupational Non-Occupational Total

Drift 62 21 83 

Direct spray/dust during application* 19 1 20 

Leak/Spill 4 0 4 

Other 2 0 2 

Unknown 3 0 3 

Indoor Air 0 0 0 

Surface/foliar residues 11 0 11 

Total Cases 101 22 123 

*Can be direct exposure to the handler through contact with spray, dust or fumes; or overspray to a 

bystander. Also includes direct exposures that occur while mixing or loading pesticides. 

 

50 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Pesticides Involved in DPP Cases with Agricultural Exposures 

Thirty-two (26%) agricultural DPP cases involved exposure to an insecticide 

alone or in combination with other pesticides (Table 28). More than half (17/32) 

of the insecticides involved were cholinesterase inhibitors. Azinphos-methyl was 

associated with 14 ill workers in five incidents. Combinations of insecticides 

included acephate, methomyl, dimethoate, and methyl parathion. Unlike previous 

years, there were no DPP cases with chlorpyrifos, phosmet, carbaryl, or 

Malathion among agricultural workers in 2008. Combinations of other insecticides 

and pesticides included acetamiprid, spirodiclofen, quinoxyfen, hexythiazox, 

sulfur, and mineral oil. Fifty-eight cases involve herbicide exposure. Herbicide 

combinations included 2,4-D (4), paraquat (2), glyphosate (2), carfentrazoneethyl (2), and dicamba, ethalfuralin, and triazine. Fungicides were tank-mixed 

with insecticides in seven cases and tallied under insecticide combinations with 

other pesticides. There were a total of 13 cases among agricultural workers that 

involved a fungicide exposure. Sulfur was the most common fungicide (five).

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 51
Pesticides Involved in DPP Cases with Agricultural Exposures 

Table 28. DPP Agricultural Cases by Pesticide Ingredient, 2008 

Pesticide Ag 

Handlers 

Other Ag 

Workers 

Bystanders, 

Including Non-Ag 

Cholinesterase Inhibitors 

Azinphos-methyl - 3 - 

Azinphos-methyl combined with other 

pesticides 2 9 - 

Combinations of other cholinesterase 

inhibitors with other pesticides 1 1 1 

Other insecticides

Imadicloprid 1 1 - 

Acetamiprid - 2 - 

Gamma-cyhalothrin - 1 - 

Cyfluthrin 1 1 - 

Pyrethrins - 1 - 

Endosulfan combined with other pesticides 1 1 1 

Combinations of insecticides and other 

pesticides (no cholinesterase inhibitors) 3 - 1 

Herbicides

Clethodim - 46 - 

Alachlor 1 - - 

Orzalin 1 - - 

Paraquat dichloride 2 - - 

Herbicide combinations 5 2 1 

Fungicides

Sodium o-phenylphenate 1 - - 

Sulfur 1 - - 

Combinations of fungicides 1 3 1 

Other

Chloropicrin and Telone 1 - - 

Metam sodium/potassium - - 22 

Gibberellins 1 - - 

Ethephon PGR 1 - - 

Hydrogen peroxide 1 - - 

Totals 25 71 27 

52 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Insecticides 

In 2008, the Department of Health documented three DPP cases in pesticide 

handlers associated with cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitors and 13 DPP cases in 

other agricultural workers. Although case numbers have fluctuated between 13 

and four, Department of Health has seen an average of about ten cases annually 

among handlers for the last ten years. The drop in cholinesterase-inhibiting 

insecticide involvement in pesticide handlers to three cases in 2008 is notable. 

Department of Health asked for and received information from the L&I ChE 

Monitoring Program, pertaining to the cases of ChE depression below the action 

level (>20% below baseline). L&I reported that in 2008, there were no 

symptomatic cases identified by the monitoring program, and that 22 workers 

were identified as having asymptomatic ChE depression. L&I ChE Monitoring 

Program and Department of Health plan to cross-check data on identified ChE 

depression cases. Department of Health also plans to “back-check” the 2008 and 

2009 investigation data with the L&I ChE monitoring program, to better 

understand the number of agricultural workers identified by Department of Health 

as likely ill as a result of ChE-inhibitor exposure, that were enrolled in the ChE 

monitoring program. This cooperative relationship between L&I ChE Monitoring 

Program and Department of Health’s Pesticide Program is detailed in a 

Memorandum of Understanding. By working together to cross-check the 

information collected about exposure to ChE inhibiting insecticides and ChE 

depression of pesticide handlers, Department of Health and L&I ChE Monitoring 

Program will improve their ability to evaluate whether workers that should have 

been in the ChE monitoring program were missed, or if possible health outcomes 

of ChE depression were overlooked. 

Figure 10 shows the number of handlers that experienced systemic symptoms 

(which affects the body internally) and the number that had topical symptoms 

(i.e., skin or eye irritation) from 1997 to 2008. Since the cholinesterase 

monitoring program began in 2004, there is a decrease in systemic poisoning 

cases documented by the state Department of Health. 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 53
Figure 10. Type of Illness and Injury for Handlers of CholinesteraseInhibiting Pesticides,* 1997 – 2008 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Systemic Illness Topical Illness

*Agricultural workers who handle cholinesterase inhibitors via mixing, loading, applying, or 

repairing equipment. 

Non-Agricultural Pesticide Events 

Department of Health documented 129 non-agricultural DPP cases in 2008 

(Table 29). 

Table 29. Exposure Site for Non-Agricultural, Occupational and NonOccupational DPP Cases, 2008 

Exposure Site Occupational Non-Occupational 

Office, retail or service businesses 6 1 

Park, camp, golf course 1 6 

Public Transportation Vehicle 1 1 

Residential building or grounds (home, apartment) 8 84 

Road, right of way or vehicle 5 

School, prison, hospital / clinic 6 4 

Other 2 1 

Unknown 1 2 

Total non-agricultural pesticide use 30 99 

54 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Non-Agricultural Occupational 

In 2008, of the 129 non-agricultural DPP cases, 30 (23%) of them occurred onthe-job. 

Sixteen of the 98 non-agricultural, non-occupational DPP cases were exposed to 

applications by professional (paid) applicators (Table 30). The remaining 82 

cases were due to applications made by home owners, landlords, and 

coworkers. 

Table 30. Target Pest for Non-Agricultural, Non-Occupational Cases 

Exposed to Pesticide Applications by Professional* and Non-Professional 

Applicators, 2008** 

Professional Applications Non-Professional Applications 

Landscape/Garden Use

Insects 1 5 

Weeds 4 12 

Moss in Lawn 1 

Plant Diseases 1 6 

Use In/Around Structures 

Insects/Spiders 7 17 

Moss on Roof 3 

Applications to People/Pets

Lice/Scabies Treatments 12 

Fleas on Pets 3 

Repellant 5 

Community - Wide Applications

Mosquitoes 3 

Accidental/Non –Targeted

Unknown / Not Applicable 18 

Total 16 82 

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

**Limited to cases with illness classified by Health as DPP due to pesticide exposure. 

 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 55
Highlighted 2008 Pesticide-Illness Events Involving Multiple 

People 

Event Description: Aerial Application Drifts on 47 Farm Workers. 

Forty-seven apple harvesters age 18 to 61 sought medical care after reporting 

drift from an aerial herbicide application to an adjacent alfalfa field. The incident 

occurred while many of the workers were eating lunch at the edge of the orchard. 

Some reported feeling the spray; others only smelled it. Workers reported 

primarily headache, eye and upper respiratory irritation, and dermal and 

gastrointestinal symptoms. One worker was asymptomatic. Work was stopped 

and employees (18 females, 29 men) were sent to clinics in three nearby 

communities. WSDA investigated and detected residue of the herbicide applied 

on one of four clothing samples collected. Residues were also found for an 

insecticide applied to the apple orchard some time earlier for which the reentry 

interval had been met. Residues of two other pesticides were also detected on 

clothes of workers for which the origin was unknown.

CLASSIFICATION: 46 cases DPP; 1 case insufficient information 

Severity: 46 mild 

Event Description: Transport of fumigant sickens rail workers 

A 32 year old male switchman foreman, a 46 year old locomotive engineer, and a 

34 year old switchman assistant were transporting a tank car with 16,000 gallons 

of restricted use pesticide toxicity class 1 (danger) fumigant by rail to its 

destination, a tank farm 13 miles from the rail yard. All three men noticed an odor 

during the three-hour ride. In the final 30 minutes of the trip, stain marks were 

seen leaking from the top of the car, down both sides. They notified personnel at 

the tank farm and were taken to the hospital for evaluation and released. The 

local fire district responded to the scene, as did authorities with the railroad and 

the destination site. Department of Health Hazardous Substances Emergency 

Events Surveillance (HSEES), state Ecology, and EPA Region 10 were notified. 

A private company was hired to assess environmental impact, cleanup, and 

testing. The estimated amount of release was less than one gallon. Although 

hazmat responders were aware of the contents of the railcar, health care 

providers and the three workers were only aware of exposure to chloropicrin, not 

1, 3 dichloropropene (81% of product). The workers reported respiratory, eye, 

and gastrointestinal symptoms in addition to severe headache. Some symptoms 

lasted more than a month after the exposure and all three men sought follow-up 

healthcare. Two cases were classified as definite and the third case was 

classified as probable. Severity ranged from mild to severe for the three workers. 

56 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Event Description: Potato field fumigation during thermal inversion sickens 

nearby residents

On a fall Friday afternoon, a strong odor consistent with fumigant vapors was 

reported in a residential area adjacent to a potato field. Department of Health 

was able to collect information on 16 of the 19 people who lived there. The 16 

people included five children aged 17 days to six years, four children aged 12-18 

years, and seven individuals aged 19-65. All 16 reported eye irritation. Tearing, 

headache, nausea, abdominal cramping, coughing, shortness of breath, and 

burning in the nose and throat were also reported. Twelve of the 16 sought 

health care for symptoms. In addition, two visitors and an emergency responder 

reported exposure and irritant symptoms but did not seek health care. This 

incident occurred during application of a soil fumigant, through the central pivot 

irrigation system, on a 150 acre crop circle across the road. It appeared that 

temperature inversion contributed to the off-site movement of vapors into nearby 

homes. Strong smell in the residential area also coincided with the pivot passing 

the affected houses. The residents did not see any posted sign or receive 

notification that the adjacent field was being fumigated. Residents called the 

police; the sherriff’s office and fire department responded. Emergency 

responders did not shut down the application or notify WSDA of the incident. 

WSDA and Department of Health learned about the incident the following 

Monday and began immediate co-investigation. WSDA sampling found positive 

environmental evidence that the fumigant had moved off-site. Sixteen cases 

were classified as probable and three cases were definite. Two cases were of 

moderate severity, while the other 17 cases were mild. 

 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 57
Contributing Factors to Pesticide-Related Illness Among 

Agricultural Workers (2003 – 2008) 

Currently, Department of Health has a five-year grant from the National Institutes 

of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to better identify root causes for 

pesticide illness and injuries among agricultural workers. This is a supplemental 

grant to improve pesticide illness surveillance with an emphasis on 

understanding the root causes of improper personal protective equipment (PPE) 

practices and pesticide drift. The project has several components: 

1. Monitor the frequency and nature of contributing factors for pesticide-related 

illness among agricultural workers. Method: Department of Health added 

questions in its regular interview to understand why exposures occurred and 

developed new coding to track responses. The agency also coded two preexisting years of cases (2003 – 2004) using information in the case file. 

2. Identify specific PPE problems that contributed to pesticide-related illnesses 

and injury. Method: Department of Health recorded as much detail about the 

specific nature of PPE problems noted in the case investigation and coded 

major categories of PPE problems and added text fields to record more detail 

about the cause of the problem. 

3. Identify specific contributing factors in incidents involving pesticide drift. 

Method: Department of Health developed a one-year inter-agency checklist 

to solicit additional information on possible factors that contributed to drift to 

workers. Department of Health also added a text field to record as much 

detail as possible from its investigations and those of enforcement agencies 

during the other years of the grant. 

Findings 

From 2003 through 2008, Department of Health documented 351 cases of 

agricultural workers with an illness or injury plausibly5

 related to occupational 

pesticide exposure (Figure 11). Medical outcomes were mostly mild in severity. 

Handlers had a higher percentage of moderate to severe outcomes (14%) 

compared to other workers (10%). Department of Health did not identify any 

deaths from occupational exposure among agricultural workers during this time 

period. 

 

5

 Cases of illness or injury classified by Health Pesticide Program as definitely, probably or possibly related to 

pesticide exposure. 

58 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Pesticides handlers were identified using the EPA Worker Protection Standard 

(WPS) definition of “handling.” Handlers were mixing, loading, or applying 

pesticides; cleaning or fixing contaminated equipment; or handling open pesticide 

containers. Other workers were harvesting, thinning, moving irrigation pipes or 

doing other agricultural work. Only cases classified as DPP due to pesticide 

exposure are included. 

Department of Health is in the process of developing an agricultural worker 

protection plan for the 2010-2012 biennium. Based on the results of this study, 

specific activities to address and prevent the contributing factors that lead to 

pesticide-illness in agricultural workers will be proposed and initiated. 

Figure 11. Health Pesticide-Related Illness Cases Among Agricultural 

Workers from 2003 – 2008 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Cases of Pesticide‐Related Illness/Injury

Handlers* Other Workers*

*The lighter shade represents workers with moderate to severe injury or illness. 

Department of Health tracked 16 different underlying factors that contributed to 

over-exposure (Table 31). Among pesticide handlers (n=167), the leading 

contributing factors were lack of required personal protective equipment (PPE) 

and other PPE problems. Among other agricultural workers (n=184), pesticide 

drift was the leading factor in their over-exposure. 

 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 59
Table 31. Contributing Factors to Pesticide-Related Illness Among 

Agricultural Workers (2003 – 2008)* 

Contributing Factors Identified Handlers 

(n=167) 

Other Workers 

(n=184) 

Posting or notification didn’t occur 2 20 

People were exposed in the treated area during 

application 1 15 

Structure not adequately ventilated before allowing 

people to re-enter 1 0 

Early re-entry 0 19 

Required eye protection not worn 42 2 

Other required PPE not worn 43 5 

PPE in poor repair, not maintained, not worn correctly 29 1 

Spill or splash (not involving equipment failure) 27 2 

Product not stored properly/ within reach of children 0 1 

Decontamination not adequate or timely 14 2 

Intentional misuse of a pesticide to cause harm 0 1 

Other label violations identified 8 4 

No label violation identified but person still became 

exposed/ill 53 41 

Equipment failure 22 2 

Drift 3 101 

Applicator not properly trained and/or supervised 24 7 

Other 1 7 

Unknown 15 7 

*More than one factor can be coded for each case so the columns do not add to the total cases from 

each category of agricultural worker.

The Department of Health analyzed contributing factors for handlers separately 

from other workers since these groups often access different venues for training 

in Washington. Handlers are educated mainly through pesticide license 

recertification classes and on-the-job training provided by licensed applicators. 

Other workers are reached through on-the-job training required by WPS, radio 

shows, community services, and health fairs. Employers may want to emphasize 

different prevention messages when training their handlers and their harvesting 

crews. Public health and worker protection programs at Department of Health, 

L&I and WSDA, may want to incorporate the prevention messages most specific 

to their outreach audience. 

 

60 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Agricultural Pesticide Handlers (n=167)

Personnel Protection Equipment problems that contributed to exposure

(n=93 workers)

Fifty-six percent of handlers were missing at least one piece of required PPE (68 

handlers) or had another identified problem with their PPE (29 handlers)6

. Fortytwo workers were missing required eye protection, and 43 were missing another 

piece of PPE: gloves (n=31), respiratory PPE (n=15), rubber roots (n=6), and 

apron when mixing (n=4). Seventeen workers were missing both eye PPE and 

another required piece of PPE. Four workers were missing at least one piece of 

PPE and also had a problem with PPE that they were wearing. 

Table 32. PPE Problems That Contributed to Exposure 

Contributing Factor Identified* Total # workers with problem** 

Missing eye PPE 42 68 workers with 

at least one 

piece of missing 

PPE 

93 workers with 

some PPE problem Other required PPE not worn 43 

PPE in poor repair, not maintained, 

not worn correctly 29 

*This represents only those cases where the missing PPE contributed to their exposure. If the person 

was missing eye protection but had an exposure on their foot, missing eye PPE would not have been 

coded as a contributing factor. 

**The last two columns adjust for multiple contributing factors coded for some workers.

Department of Health recorded a reason in 68 percent of the cases of missing 

PPE. The leading reasons given for missing PPE were that the employer didn’t 

provide it (n=10) or that handlers otherwise did not think PPE was needed (n=9). 

In eight cases, the handler was wearing an inadequate type of PPE (i.e., 

sunglasses instead of safety glasses, cotton instead of rubber gloves). In seven 

cases, the handler removed PPE to clean a sprayer, fix a plugged nozzle, or 

scratch their face. 

 

 

6

 This represents only those cases where the missing PPE contributed to their exposure. If the person was 

missing eye protection but had an exposure on their foot, missing eye PPE would not have been coded as a 

contributing factor. 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 61
Table 33. Primary Reason Report for Missing PPE 

Primary Reason Reported for Missing PPE (n=68) 

Employer did not provide 10 

Didn't think it was needed 9 

Wearing wrong type 8 

Label not explained/poorly supervised 2 

Removed to clean or fix equipment 6 

Did not wear due to heat 5 

Removed to scratch eye/nose 2 

Forgot to use 1 

Other 3 

Unknown 22 

In 24/68 cases (36%), the worker was exposed while doing a handling task that 

was not strictly mixing, loading, or spraying but which is considered handling by 

WPS. Examples are cleaning application equipment after an application, fixing 

contaminated equipment, moving open containers, supervising a handler in the 

treated area, and unclogging a nozzle or adjusting valves midway through an 

application. Health investigators suspect that these workers were unaware that 

handler PPE was required for these tasks under WPS or were not motivated to 

wear PPE for tasks they perceived as having low risk of exposure. 

Exposures to unexpected spill or splashes were co-factors in 26/68 cases (38%) 

in which the handler was missing required PPE. Half of these 26 cases were due 

to some type of equipment failure. This observation could be used to motivate 

workers to guard against unexpected splashes by wearing their PPE for all tasks 

where direct exposure is possible. Another co-factor identified in 26 percent of 

cases with missing PPE was lack of training and supervision. This would include 

cases where the supervisor did not provide PPE, did not instruct the handler to 

wear PPE, or did not provide initial training or instruction. 

Twenty-nine handlers were wearing PPE with some identified problem. These 

were largely issues with respirators and goggles. In eight cases, the respirator 

cartridge was not changed frequently enough, or had an incorrect filter. Cartridge 

change-out problems were noted by Department of Health if the worker reported 

smelling chemical odors through the mask or long periods (days to weeks) 

between cartridge replacements. In four cases the handler was wearing a 

damaged respirator. In six cases the respirator had a poor fit and in five cases 

the goggles had a poor fit. Poor fit was coded if the worker mentioned that the 

seal of the respirator opened on the side when they turned their head, or that the 

goggles let mist or drips in through the seal. Poor fit was also coded if coinvestigation by another agency documented an improper fit. 

62 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
A “respirator fit-test” is required at least once to confirm that the brand and size of 

a worker’s respirator seals well over the shape of his face. In addition, a fit check 

is done each time the worker dons the respirator in order to detect improper seal 

due to loose straps, a faulty valve, or facial hair interfering with seal of respirator. 

The seal should not break when the worker moves his head in any direction. 

Many of the PPE problems identified could be addressed by attention to proper 

cartridge change-out and daily fit checking of respirators. 

Spill and splashes (n=49)

Table 34 shows the cases for which spills and splashes were identified as a 

contributing factor. Cases are coded under two categories depending on whether 

failure of spray equipment was involved. 

Table 34. Spills and Splashes Identified as Contributing Factors 

Contributing factor Applicators Mixer/Loaders Repair and 

Maintenance Totals 

Spills and splashes not 

involving equipment 

failure 

6 15 5 27* 

Equipment failure 14 1 7 22 

Totals 20 16 12 49 

*Total for this row includes on an additional worker who was transporting pesticides.

Spills and splashes were factors in 29 percent of the handler cases. Nearly half 

(45%) were due to equipment failures. The most common problems for 

applicators were ruptured spray hoses (n=7) and hoses and valves failing when 

the tank pressure was increased (n=3). The most common problem for mixers 

and loaders was eye injury from splashes not involving equipment failure (n=11). 

In eight of these cases, the handler was missing eye protection. The most 

common exposures for workers repairing or maintaining equipment occurred 

when unclogging nozzles (n=6) and washing sprayers after application (n=5). 

Cases in which spray mist blew back on the handler during the application were 

not included under spills and splashes. 

Recommendation: Protection from spills and splashes should focus on proper 

inspection and replacement of sprayer hoses, valves and nozzles; splash 

protection for eyes and face when mixing and loading pesticides; and ensuring 

that workers understand that cleaning sprayers and repairing valves and nozzles 

are handler tasks and require handlers PPE at a minimum. Handlers should wear 

splash protection for their face whenever they make adjustments or repairs to 

pressurized spray equipment. Increased adoption of closed mixing systems and 

water soluble packets would also minimize splashes during mixing. 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 63
Lack of training and supervision (n=24) 

Poor training or supervision was coded as a contributing factor in 14 percent of 

all handler cases. This probably underestimates the problem since we did not 

directly ask about training or supervision in most cases. These cases represent 

only the cases where the worker reported lack of supervision as a contributing 

factor (ten cases) or where Department of Health noted an obvious lapse in 

supervision or training. Often there were multiple errors involved. Examples are: 

supervisor didn’t provide required PPE, worker continued to work in soaked 

clothing after pesticide leak because he was unaware of the chemical hazard, 

supervisor gave the handler unsafe work instructions, and handler was unable to 

read English and no one explained the label to him. Lack of training and 

supervision was often a cofactor with missing PPE (19 cases) or spills and 

splashes (8 cases). Twenty of these 24 handlers were not licensed. 

Recommendation: Licensed applicators who supervise handlers should make 

sure all required PPE is worn and that handlers fully understand the potential for 

injury in their assigned tasks. 

No label violation but handler still became ill (n=53)

This code was used when the handler appeared to have complied with the PPE 

requirements but was still exposed with resulting injury. In a few cases, it 

appears that the handler had a sensitivity or allergic reaction to the spray. In 21 

cases, the required eye protection did not protect the handler when a splash 

occurred or equipment broke. There are four ways to meet EPA’s requirement for 

eye protection: safety glasses with side, brow and bottom protection; goggles; 

face mask; and full-face respirator. Safety glasses in particular were not effective 

in protecting against splashes or wind-blown spray mist. 

At least one scenario was reported eight times and should be explored further to 

determine if the label is sufficiently protective. Handlers driving air blast sprayers 

in orchards frequently reported that they are exposed on their face and neck 

when they turn the tractor at the end of the row. This is partly due to turning their 

heads to look back at the sprayer during the turn. In addition, they may drive 

back through spray mist as they start the next row. This included one worker with 

80 percent depression in ChE activity who was wearing a fit-tested respirator, full 

PPE, and whose only reported exposure was that he sometimes smells and feels 

chemicals on his skin at the end of the rows. The eight handlers are in addition to 

six workers (coded as having a PPE problem) who specifically reported that their 

goggles or respirators did not seal tightly to their face when they turned their 

heads at the end of the row. 

64 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Pesticide drift (n=35 applications) 

Pesticide drift was not a frequent cause of handler exposure but handlers are 

responsible to ensure that pesticides do not drift and contact other workers. 

Handlers and their supervisors should take note of the contributing factors for 

pesticide drift outlined on Page 69. 

Type of pesticide (n=167 handler cases)

Forty-four percent of handler cases involved exposure to an insecticide either 

alone or in combination with fungicides and other pesticides. Over half of these 

insecticide cases involved exposure to an acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor 

such as chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, phosmet, dimethoate, or carbaryl. 

Herbicides, such as glyphosate, paraquat, and 2-4, D, were involved with 31 

percent of cases. Fungicides are frequently tank mixed with insecticides and are 

under-represented visually in Figure 12. Fungicides applied alone or in 

combinations were associated with 15 percent of handler cases. When the 

fungicides tank-mixed with insecticides is added, a total of 32 percent of the 

handler cases involved exposure to a fungicide. Common fungicides were sulfur 

compounds, mancozeb, and captan. 

Figure 12. Type of Pesticide Involved with Handler Cases 

 

Cases

involving a

AChE

inhibitor

26%

Other

insecticides

18%

Herbicides

31%

Fungicides

15%

Other

5%

Fumigants

5%

n=167

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 65
Other characteristics: Handlers in this data set were 98 percent male, 83 percent 

Hispanic, and 73 percent preferred to communicate in Spanish. Median age was 

33 with range of 16-74 years old. Most were exposed while applying pesticides 

(75%). Ten percent were mixing or loading at the time of their exposure, ten 

percent were repairing or maintaining equipment, three workers (1.5%) were 

transporting pesticides, and six workers (3.5%) were doing some combination of 

these handling tasks. Seventeen percent of handlers were licensed pesticide 

applicators, 57 percent reported to be working under the supervision of a 

licensed person, and 15 percent were not licensed. License status was unknown 

in five percent of the handler cases and not applicable in sic percent of cases 

(i.e. no application taking place). Most frequent crops associated with handler 

cases were tree fruit (59%), potatoes (6%), hops (6%), berries (6%), nursery and 

ornamentals (5%), and grapes (4%) and cereal grains (2%). Ground sprayers 

were associated with 65 percent of handler exposures (i.e., the air blast sprayer). 

Backpack sprayers accounted for six percent, power sprayers with handheld 

spray lines (6%), and manual placement of baits or fumigants (5%). All other 

equipment categories were three percent or less including aerial applications.

Other Agricultural Workers (n=184) 

Pesticide drift (35 incidents involving 104 workers) 

Drift from agricultural pesticides is a persistent source of documented illnesses. 

In this six-year period, 80 incidents involving 191 people were considered by 

Department of Health to be plausibly related to agricultural pesticide drift. More 

than half of these incidents involved drift to bystanders or workers outside 

agriculture. Thirty-five incidents, exposing three handlers and 101 other 

agricultural workers, are described below. 

66 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
All 35 incidents involved pressurized application equipment. Five incidents 

involved aerial applications; the rest were ground sprayers. Two-thirds of the 

incidents (23/35) involved ground sprayers in orchards (e.g., orchard air blast 

sprayer). No other crop had more than two drift incidents involving workers. 

Since differences in acres planted do not explain the higher frequency seen in 

tree fruit, the factors that make drift-related illness more likely in orchards 

workers need to be understood. One possible explanation is the acute toxicity of 

the products used in orchards. Twenty of 23 orchard incidents involved 

insecticide exposures; 70 percent of these were cholinesterase inhibitors. 

Another factor may be the high pressure fan-shaped spray produced by the 

typical orchard air blast sprayer. Drift research has shown that fine droplets 

produced by this type of equipment are prone to drift. The data suggest that driftrelated illness among agricultural workers should decrease with continuing efforts 

to replace the most acutely toxic products in tree fruit and to modify or replace air 

blast sprayers. 

Other factors that appeared to contribute to drift were: proximity of workers to the 

spray equipment, inadequate communication, and in at least four incidents, 

windy conditions. In most of the drift incidents the workers could see or hear a 

sprayer nearby. In 12 of the 35 incidents, the reported distance between the 

worker and the sprayer was less than 50 meters or the worker was in the block or 

field being treated. In another 17 incidents, workers were in an adjacent block or 

field or at the edge of the block. When asked why workers were close to sprayers 

or in the same spray block, Department of Health often heard that they were not 

notified about the sprayer and were not sure they were permitted to leave their 

work when the drift reached them. In five incidents, the applicator saw the 

workers but thought he was a safe distance from them. In ten incidents, the 

sprayer worked for a neighboring farm. Farms should notify each other when 

treating their perimeter fields. Notification could help keep workers a safe 

distance from pesticide applicators. 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 67
Workers Present in the Treated Area During Application (n=15) 

or Exposed During Early Re-entry (n=19)

In 15 cases, workers were in the target area during the application. This resulted 

in exposure to direct spray or drift from nearby sprayers. Examples are a 

mechanic who was sprayed aerially while fixing an irrigation pump, farm workers 

who received direct spray when a speed sprayer passed one row away, and a 

dairy worker who worked in the same room as an automated insecticide mister. 

Poor communication or lack of notification appeared to be a factor in half of these 

cases. Examples include: a mower who was surprised when a sprayer began 

working in the same area of the orchard and an apple packer who received spray 

in her face when a sprayer passed one row away. Farms should maintain 

ongoing communication between pesticide applicators and other work crews to 

keep unprotected workers out of harm’s way. 

Early re-entry into a treated area was identified as a contributing factor in 19 

cases (18 incidents). In several cases, neither the employer nor the workers were 

aware of the early re-entry before Department of Health compared the 

investigation notes with the pesticide application records. There were 11 early 

entries on 12-48 hrs Restricted Entry Intervals (REIs), and five early reentries on 

14 day REIs. Again, communication problems appeared to be an underlying 

factor in 11 of 19 cases. Crop advisors and irrigators did not see posted signs, 

other workers reported that they did not see posted signs and were following 

verbal instructions from supervisors. In one case, a crew of workers had already 

been sent to an area when the employer realized that an REI was still in place 

and moved the workers. The workers had not noticed any signs. Fields need to 

be posted according to the label and WPS. Since field workers rely on verbal 

instructions from their supervisors, a central system of tracking needs to be 

maintained so that supervisors do not assign workers to areas that are restricted. 

68 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Other characteristics: Other workers in our six-year data set were 61 percent 

male, 89 percent Hispanic, and 82 percent preferred to communicate in Spanish. 

Median age was 32 with a range of 14-65 years of age. Workers were 

predominantly working in tree fruit (67%) at the time of exposure. Activity at the 

time of exposure was fruit harvesting (65 workers), thinning (28 workers), general 

orchard work (23 workers), nursery work (18 workers), irrigators (9 workers), field 

crop work (9 workers), fruit tree pruning (8 workers), and vineyard work (7 

workers). One large drift incident in 2008 involved 46 fruit harvesters. If this 

incident is removed from the analysis, thinning is actually the most common 

activity among other workers associated with pesticide-related illness. Application 

equipment associated with exposures to other workers were 58 percent ground 

sprayers (mostly air blast sprayers) and 29 percent aerial sprayers. Again, 46 

workers in one incident were exposed to a single aerial application. If this 

incident is subtracted, 89 percent of cases were related to ground sprayer 

equipment. 

Limitations 

Information on contributing factors was largely collected through phone 

interviews with workers who had become ill or injured. The Department of Health 

did not routinely contact employers to confirm that the information was consistent 

with their understanding of the event. Since the worker is not initiating the call 

and often does not want state health staff to contact his or her employer, the 

agency is limited by information that is one-sided. Department of Health sees the 

pesticide application records and the findings of enforcement agencies if the 

case was co-investigated but the information should be considered incomplete. 

The information is collected for the sole purpose of guiding prevention. 

Conclusions from 2008 Data and NIOSH Study 

Pesticide Drift 

In 2008, agricultural drift accounted for a disproportionately high number of 

illnesses per event compared to other sources of exposure. There were 18 driftrelated cases documented this year, in addition to the 2 large incidents discussed 

in this report. Non-agriculturally employed bystanders comprised 26% of all the 

exposures plausibly related to agricultural drift in 2008. The details of the drift 

incidents documented in the Department of Health’s investigations conducted in 

2008, coupled with the expanded analysis of the previous six years of data, 

enable Department of Health to understand factors that contribute to agricultural 

pesticide drift. This understanding can lead to effective solutions. Preventable 

factors that contribute to agricultural pesticide drift are: 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 69
• Inadequate communication between applicators and other workers or 

neighbors. 

• Proximity of application equipment to workers, roads, and homes. 

• Use of equipment that is prone to drift (i.e., orchard air blast sprayer). 

• Use of fumigant and other acutely toxic products. 

• Application during unfavorable weather conditions. 

More information about pesticide drift and air monitoring for pesticides in 

Washington can be found on-line, in English and Spanish, at 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/Pest/drift.htm. 

Personal Protective Equipment 

Missing required PPE was a contributing factor in 41 percent of handler cases 

documented over a six-year period. Top reasons for missing PPE were that the 

employer didn’t provide it; the handler didn’t think it was needed for the task; and 

the handler removed PPE to clean or fix equipment. Recommendations: 

• Employers need to provide all PPE required on the pesticide label and 

ensure their handlers wear it. 

• Handlers need to wear handlers gear when cleaning and fixing contaminated 

equipment, moving open containers, transferring pesticides, or anytime they 

are doing tasks in an area being sprayed. 

PPE problems such as poor fit, delayed change-out of respirator cartridges, and 

wearing damaged PPE, were documented in 17 percent of the handler cases 

over a six-year period. Recommendations:

• Many of the PPE problems identified could be addressed by attention to 

proper cartridge change-out and daily fit checking of respirators. Handlers 

should conduct a negative and positive pressure check every time they don 

their respirator. 

• Both goggles and respirators should maintain their seal to the face when the 

handler’s head turns to the side. 

70 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Although the NIOSH project focused on agricultural workers, the prevention data 

investigators collect is coded for every case. This information is important and its 

dissemination is crucial to prevention. Efforts are underway for 2009-2010 to 

share this information with health care providers and at trade association and 

other industry meetings. For example, Department of Health will present to health 

care providers at the 2010 Western Migrant Stream Forum. Department of Health 

has been coordinating with representatives from the Washington State Farm 

Bureau to provide this information to their constituents. There is ongoing 

collaboration with Washington State University, L&I, WSDA, and other agencies, 

to present Department of Health findings to pesticide handlers and agricultural 

supervisors. 

Counties 

Longitudinal analysis of counties points to ongoing elevated health impact of 

pesticide use in Chelan, Franklin, Grant, Okanogan, and Yakima counties. Health 

plans to begin to address this by developing a county specific datasheet of 

pesticide-illness cases having occurred in these counties during the past year, 

and supplying that data to appropriate contacts within the local health 

departments representing these communities. Exposure prevention information 

and resources will be included. 

Severity 

As in prior years, most individuals (90% of 2008 cases) who experienced a 

pesticide-related illness suffered mild symptoms. Even clinically mild symptoms 

may cause significant distress to individuals and their families and up to three 

days of lost work time. Nine percent of the exposures produced moderate 

outcomes. There were two cases with severe medical outcomes, and no deaths 

documented as DPP in 2008. 

Prevention Activities 

Department of Health is currently working with WSDA, L&I, and University of 

Washington Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health center to integrate 

Department of Health findings from the analysis of contributing factors with 

findings from PNASH studies of agricultural workers, L&I follow-up on ChE 

depressions, and WSP inspections conducted by L&I and WSDA. Toward this 

end, Department of Health developed key prevention messages for several 

different important target groups. 

 

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 71
Key Prevention Messages by Target Group 

Male Hispanic Handlers 

(in Spanish) 

• Important to wear all required PPE (especially 

goggles, gloves) 

 Employers must provide you with what the 

label requires. 

 Wear for all handling tasks including cleaning 

spray equipment. 

 Always wear splash protection when 

adjusting or fixing pressurized equipment. 

• Check the fit of your goggles and respirator every 

time. 

• Spray drift from air blast sprayers can travel far 

especially when trees are bare. Make sure 

thinners and other workers are a safe distance. 

• Communicate spray plans with foremen of other 

work crews and irrigators on the farm. 

Male and female 

Hispanic field workers 

(in Spanish) 

• If a sprayer comes into your work area, find your 

foremen and move. 

• Report drift to your foremen and decontaminate 

exposed skin and clothes. 

Agricultural 

Employers/foremen 

• Provide workers with all PPE required on 

pesticide label. 

• Supervise handlers to ensure they wear PPE and 

wear it correctly. Ensure proper respirator 

cartridge replacement. 

• Unlicensed handlers need close supervision. 

• Keep workers out of harm’s way: facilitate 

communication between spray crews and others. 

• Notify neighbor farms when spraying blocks 

along the property line. 

• Post treated fields with required warning signs 

throughout the re-entry period. 

• Track REI’s centrally at the office where work is 

assigned; ensure that crews and irrigators are 

not verbally directed to work in areas before REI 

has expired. 

EPA • Review REI’s to ensure they are protective. 

• Give guidance for safe distance from orchard air 

blast sprayer. 

• Continue to encourage alternatives to acutely 

toxic pesticides. 

• Review worker exposure assumptions for 

handlers on air blast sprayers. 

72 Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 73

Department of Health is incorporating prevention messages into regular outreach 

and training activities and plans to share the results with agency partners in 

pesticide safety at WSU, WSDA, L&I, NIOSH, and EPA. State health staff will 

also distribute study results and other pesticide-illness prevention information to 

agricultural employers, pesticide handlers, community groups, health care 

providers, and the public. 

In 2008, the Department of Health presented findings from investigations and 

illness-monitoring activities at state, local and national venues. Department of 

Health continues to work closely with other agencies, notably L&I, WSDA, WSU, 

and PNASH. A common goal is to develop integrated prevention messages and 

strategies for agricultural employers and employees, and to provide quality 

training and safety information to pesticide handlers and farm supervisors.

Labor and Industries 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ summary of pesticide-related 

activity for 2008.

Background 

Within the Department of Labor and Industries, four divisions are involved in 

pesticide or agriculture related activities: the Division of Occupational Safety and 

Health (DOSH), Specialty Compliance Services, Industrial Insurance Services, 

and Field Services. 

• DOSH has a mandate to ensure workplace safety and health. DOSH 

develops and adopts occupational safety and health standards, provides 

stakeholder training and outreach, co-sponsors the annual Governor’s 

Industrial Safety and Health Conference and also an Agriculture Safety Day, 

inspects workplaces and enforces safety and health requirements, provides 

technical assistance and consultation services, handles employer appeals of 

safety and health citations, and generates the L&I section of the PIRT report. 

Specifically, DOSH enforces the pesticide Worker Protection and the 

Cholinesterase Monitoring standards, and manages the statewide 

Cholinesterase Monitoring program. The DOSH Consultation Education and 

Outreach Program L&I Consultation Services, a division of DOSH, provides 

no-cost safety, health and risk management consultations to employers. 

Although consultations are confidential and details are not discloseable 

under Chapter 49.17 RCW, summary information is provided. 

• The Specialty Compliance Services Division issue farm labor contractor 

licenses, and enforces regulations on agricultural wages, breaks, rest 

periods, recordkeeping requirements, and prohibited jobs for teens. 

• Insurance Services provides comprehensive workers’ compensation 

programs. The Safety & Health Assessment & Research for Prevention 

(SHARP) group researches pesticide and agricultural related safety and 

health issues. The Claims Program administers wage replacement and 

medical benefits for workers who become ill or injured on the job. 

• Field Services provides support for several of the other L&I services in the 

different L&I Regions throughout the state. 

The pesticide-related activities of DOSH and Insurance Services are described 

below. 

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 75
DOSH Cholinesterase Monitoring Program 

The Department of Labor and Industries adopted WAC 296-307-148, 

Cholinesterase Monitoring, in December 2003. The cholinesterase monitoring 

rule became effective February 1, 2004. This rule requires agricultural employers 

to document the number of hours their employees spend handling toxicity 

category I or II organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. A 

depression in cholinesterase levels can lead to a wide range of physical 

symptoms, including: blurred vision, headache, increased sweating, nausea, 

diarrhea, and fatigue. A severe depression can result in slowing of the heart rate, 

seizures, unconsciousness, respiratory failure, and death. 

Agricultural employers are required to offer each employee who may handle 

covered pesticides for thirty or more hours in any consecutive thirty day period 

the opportunity to participate in the cholinesterase blood monitoring program. 

Monitoring of cholinesterase levels in both red blood cells and blood serum can 

detect cholinesterase depression before the onset of illness. Employees are 

provided an annual baseline test prior to use of targeted pesticides. 

Cholinesterase activity levels are determined periodically during the application 

season and are compared to baseline levels. A decrease from baseline by 20 

percent or more indicates potential pesticide over-exposure. Although by itself a 

cholinesterase level depression is not a violation of the standard, it is an indicator 

of exposure that L&I uses to initiate review and investigation of pesticide handling 

practices. 

To encourage participation in cholinesterase monitoring, L&I held numerous 

outreach and training workshops on the standard for growers, employees and 

medical providers throughout the state. 

Cholinesterase Monitoring Results 

During the 2008 cholinesterase monitoring season (January 21 – October 11), 

~218 employers and 2,013 pesticide handlers participated in pre-exposure 

baseline cholinesterase testing. Three hundred and fourteen pesticide handlers 

were tested again (periodic testing) at least once during the application season. 

Most handlers submitting periodic tests met the testing requirement threshold for 

handling toxicity class I or II organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides 

for >30 hours in any consecutive 30 day period (mean is 46.5 hours). However, 

in some cases employers scheduled employees for testing regardless of the 

number of handling hours. 

 

76 Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Table 35. Comparison of Employer and Handler Cholinesterase (ChE) 

Testing and Cholinesterase Depressions in 2004 – 2008 

Years 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Employers participating in testing 380 316 244 226 218 

Handlers submitting baseline 

tests 2630 2263 1889 1857* 2013 

Handlers with at least one 

periodic test 580 611 471 386 314 

Periodic tests 911 970 692 532 495 

Handlers with ChE depression to 

work evaluation level 

97 

(16.7%) 

49 

(8.0%) 

50 

(10.6%) 

49 

(12.6%) 

21 

(6.7%) 

Handlers with ChE depression to 

exposure removal level 

22 

(3.8%) 

10 

(1.6%) 

7 

(1.5%) 

18 

(4.6%)** 

1 

(0.1%) 

Total # handlers with ChE 

depression 

119 

(20.5%) 

59 

(9.6%) 

57 

(12.1%) 

67 

(17.3%) 

22 

(7.0%) 

*One handler experienced simultaneous ChE depressions to both the evaluation and removal levels. 

**120 handlers submitted “working baselines” this is an increase from 48 in 2006.

Of the 314 handlers who received periodic testing, 21 (7.0%) experienced a 

depression in cholinesterase activity (action level) greater than 20% which 

required the employer to evaluate pesticide handling practices. Only 1 (0.3%) 

was temporarily removed from exposure to covered pesticides because of red 

blood cell cholinesterase depression > 30%. Significantly, no pesticide handlers 

were identified through occupational monitoring, with pesticide related illness. 

The number of pesticide handlers undergoing blood cholinesterase testing in 

2008 increased by ~8.0% from 2007. Conversely, the number of participating 

employers continued its downward trend but appears to be leveling off. This is 

believed to reflect industry pesticide use patterns, employer experience in 

identifying pesticide handlers covered by the testing requirements of the rule, and 

employer actions resulting in limiting handler exposure (e.g., increased use of 

integrated pest management techniques). 

The above ChE summary information is an excerpt from the DOSH report titled 

“Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2008 Final 

Report.” The full report can be located along with the cholinesterase monitoring 

data on the L&I/DOSH cholinesterase monitoring Web site listed below: 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/2008Report.pdf 

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

rt07_Final_010407.pdf 

The following is the complete web site for the cholinesterase program: 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/default.asp. 

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 77
DOSH Enforcement and Consultation 

To enforce safety and health requirements in the workplace, L&I DOSH staff 

members may issue citations requiring employers to implement changes in their 

workplace programs. Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) 

violations are typically categorized as either “serious” or “general.” A serious 

violation presents a “substantial probability that death or serious physical harm 

could result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means, 

methods, operations or processes which have been adopted or are in use, in the 

workplace . . .” and has an assigned penalty. A general violation is a situation 

where the “most serious injury, illness or disease that would likely 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.” All violations both serious and general 

require employers to implement changes in the workplace and provide DOSH 

confirmation of these corrections. Follow-up inspections may be performed as 

needed to ensure compliance. Infrequently, employers may be issued a citation 

for a violation classified as “willful” when there is evidence indicating either an 

intentional disregard of the WISH Act or plain indifference to its requirements. 

Inspections conducted by DOSH can result in citing several different violations 

which may be classified as either serious or general. 

This section summarizes the results of pesticide-related safety and health 

inspections conducted by L&I DOSH. A description of each inspection is provided 

in Appendix C. The number of pesticide-related inspections slightly decreased in 

2008. 

78 Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Figure 13. DOSH Workplace Safety and Health Inspections, 2001 – 

2008 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Of the 25 inspections conducted in Washington involving pesticide related 

issues, 23 (92%) were located in eastern Washington and two (6%) were located 

in western Washington. Of the 25 pesticide-related DOSH inspections, three 

were referrals from sources such as state agencies, health care providers, or the 

public. The remaining twenty-two inspections conducted were unannounced and 

initiated by DOSH. 

Twenty-four of the 2008 inspections occurred in agricultural environments. One 

was in a non-agricultural setting. Figure 14 shows the inspections by type of work 

place. Fifteen (60%) of the inspections involved orchards. The “Other 

Agricultural” workplace classification included three wine grape farms, one crop 

planting service, one cherry orchard combined with a fruit packing 

establishments, one fresh fruits and vegetable farm, one dairy, one berry, and 

one fruit cold storage business. The one non-agricultural inspection involved a 

livestock establishment. 

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 79
Figure 14. DOSH Inspections by Type of Workplace, 2008 

Agriculture

15

Non-Agriculture

1

Other Agriculture

9

DOSH Inspections Involving Violations 

In 2008, L&I/DOSH conducted twenty five inspections involving citations related 

to pesticides use. Monetary penalties totaling $22,770 were assessed for three 

“repeat serious violation” and 14 serious pesticide-related violations from eight of 

the 25 total inspections. There were 75 general pesticide-related violations which 

had no assessed penalties; these were cited on 22 of the 25 inspections. 

The “repeat serious violation” penalty totaled $11,700. The fourteen serious 

violations resulted in a total monetary penalty of $11,070 with an average penalty 

of $791. 

The most frequent type of serious (17) and general (75) WISHA violations cited 

in 2008 were the following: 

• Respirator deficiencies, including no respirator program, improper storage or 

cleaning of respirators, no medical evaluations of worker’s ability to wear a 

respirator, or no respirator fit-testing. 

• Hazard communication deficiencies in safety programs, including: missing 

written programs, chemical inventories, or MSDS; no employee training; or 

insufficient chemical labeling. 

• Accident prevention program deficiencies. 

• Employees not trained about pesticides, their hazards, or field sanitation. 

• No emergency eyewash provided. 

• Deficiencies in appropriate personal protective equipment. 

• No hand-washing facilities or toilet. 

80 Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
• No required safety committee or safety meetings. 

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

• Incomplete pesticide inventory. 

• No decontamination supplies 

• Inadequacies in the Cholinesterase Monitoring program. 

• Improper use of product as directed by the label 

General and serious violations involving pesticides are categorized by type of 

violation in Figure 15. 

Figure 15. WISHA General and Serious Violations Involving 

Pesticides, 2008 

0 10 20 30 40

Respiratory Protection

Hazard Communications

Label Issues

Pesticide Sanitation

Eyewash

PPE

Che Program

APP/Safety

Posting

Incomplete Pesticide Records

No Decon Supplies

Serious

General

L&I Claims Insurance Services Division, Claims Administration 

Program 

The Insurances Services Division, Claims Administration Program, processes 

workers’ compensation claims initiated by on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In 

2008, the Claims Administration Program received 138 claims where the injury or 

illness initially appeared to be related to pesticide exposure (Table 36). The 

number of pesticide-related claims increased in 2008 by ≈24 percent from 2007. 

L&I either accepts or rejects claims based on whether or not a work-related injury 

or illness is diagnosed. Compensation is determined in accordance with the 

following definitions:

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 81
• Medical Only/Non-Compensable Claim: A worker experiences symptoms that 

he/she believes occurred from exposure on-the-job and seeks medical 

evaluation. When a physician finds that the symptoms are related to the 

exposure and there is objective evidence of injury, the claim is allowed. The 

medical evaluation and any follow-up medical care/treatment costs are paid. 

In this type of claim, the employee misses less than three days of work. 

These lost workdays are not reimbursed to the employee. 

• Time Loss/Compensable Claim: A worker has an allowable claim and misses 

more than three days of work immediately following an exposure on the job. 

The worker is paid a portion of salary while unable to work. All related 

medical costs are covered. 

• Rejected Claims: Initial diagnostic and medical evaluation costs are covered 

but the claim is rejected because objective evidence is lacking to relate 

symptoms to the workplace exposure. Claims may be rejected because 

symptoms have resolved by the time treatment is obtained, there is no 

objective evidence of injury, the worker may not yet have symptoms of illness 

from the exposure, or exposure cannot be confirmed or documented. A 

rejected status can be appealed and is often re-evaluated, but, once final, the 

worker can no longer reopen a claim based on original symptoms. Illness 

claims may be either opened or re-opened up to two years after the 

identification of the onset of delayed symptoms. Costs of initial medical visits 

are usually paid. 

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

determination can be made. 

• Kept on Salary: The employer elects to pay the claimant’s salary instead of 

L&I paying time loss payments while the employee is recovering from an 

injury or illness.

 

82 Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Table 36. Status of L&I Claims Initially Related to Pesticides, 2001 - 2008 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Medical Only Noncompensable 75 79 83 70 62 68 82 108 

Time Loss/ Compensable 8 4 4 4 2 4 2 5 

Rejected 45 26 45 26 29 36 20 24 

Pending/Unknown - - 1 1 - 1 0 0 

Kept on Salary 1 - - - - 1 1 1 

Total 129 109 133 101 93 110 105 138 

Claims categorized as Medical only and Time loss are compensated as workrelated injuries. Of the 138 claims in 2008, 113 (≈82%) were compensated by L&I 

as being work related injuries. L&I paid either time-loss or medical benefits for a 

total of $111,070 in 2008. 

As noted in the Rejected Claims definition above, most rejected claims were 

compensated for initial diagnostic and medical evaluations costs even if a 

determination could not be made to relate the symptoms to the work place. 

L&I Claims Reported to Department of Health 

The criteria applied by L&I and DOH are independent and distinctly different from 

each other as they are used for different purposes. Because of the differences in 

the criteria used and the purposes for which they are applied, the DOH criteria 

and subsequent determination regarding a specific L&I claim’s relationship to 

pesticide exposure does not invalidate or affect the determination made by L&I. 

At DOHs request L&I provides claim information involving pesticides to DOH. For 

2008 DOH investigated 138 L&I worker compensation claims. Of the 138 claims 

investigate by DOH L&I assessed 114 of 138 claims as work-related. Of the 114 

claims that L&I assessed as valid work related injuries, DOH classified 108 

(≈78%) as definitely, probably, or possibly related to pesticides (DPP). Based on 

the DOH criteria, 12 cases of 138 cases were classified by DOH as having 

insufficient evidence to assess the link with pesticides, suspicious, or unlikely to 

be related to pesticide exposure. Of the 24 claims that L&I rejected, DOH 

classified 10 as likely to be associated with pesticide exposure (DPP). 

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 83
84 Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report

Table 37. Comparison of L&I Claims and DOH Classification Status, 2008 

L&I Claim Determination 

DOH Classification 

Definite Probable Possible Insuf Inf Suspicious Unlikely Total 

Medical Only/ Non-compensable 19 24 53 7 -- 5 108 

Time Loss/ Compensable 0 3 2 -- -- -- 5 

Rejected 1 3 6 5 -- 9 23 

Pending/Unknown -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 

Kept on Salary -- 1 -- -- -- -- 2 

Total 20 31 61 12 -- 14 138 

Table 37 illustrates the difference in evaluation criteria and perspective between 

the two agencies, and in this table one hundred and fourteen of the 138 claims 

L&I referred to DOH for evaluation were agricultural. The 24 DPP non-agricultural 

cases were for employees who worked in a variety of professions including 

landscaping, construction, pest control, maintenance, and others. 

Occupational exposures are described in detail in the DOH Section under 

Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness.
APPENDIX A 

Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) Review Panel 

Pesticides – Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090

2009 Panel Representatives

Pesticide Incident Definition

Primary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticide Exposure
Pesticides – Health Hazards RCW 70.104.070-090 

RCW 70.104.070 Pesticide incident reporting and tracking review panel -- 

Intent. The Legislature finds that heightened concern regarding health and 

environmental impacts from pesticide use and misuse has resulted in an 

increased demand for full-scale health investigations, assessment of resource 

damages, and health effects information. Increased reporting, comprehensive 

unbiased investigation capability, and enhanced community education efforts are 

required to maintain this state's responsibilities to provide for public health and 

safety. 

It is the intent of the Legislature that the various state agencies responsible for 

pesticide regulation coordinate their activities in a timely manner to ensure 

adequate monitoring of pesticide use and protection of workers and the public 

from the effects of pesticide misuse. 

[1989 c 380 § 67.] 

Severability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942. 

RCW 70.104.080 Pesticide panel -- Generally. 

(1) There is hereby created a pesticide incident reporting and tracking review 

panel consisting of the following members: 

(a) The directors, secretaries, or designees of the departments of labor and 

industries, agriculture, natural resources, fish and wildlife, and ecology; 

(b) The secretary of the department of health or his or her designee, who shall 

serve as the coordinating agency for the review panel; 

(c) The chair of the department of environmental health of the University of 

Washington, or his or her designee; 

(d) The pesticide coordinator and specialist of the cooperative extension at 

Washington State University or his or her designee; 

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

(f) A practicing toxicologist and a member of the general public, who shall each 

be appointed by the governor for terms of two years and may be appointed for a 

maximum of four terms at the discretion of the governor. The governor may 

remove either member prior to the expiration of his or her term of appointment for 

cause. Upon the death, resignation, or removal for cause of a member of the 

review panel, the governor shall fill such vacancy, within thirty days of its 

creation, for the remainder of the term in the manner herein prescribed for 

appointment to the review panel. 

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 85
(2) The review panel shall be chaired by the secretary of the department of 

health, or the secretary's designee. The members of the review panel shall meet 

at least monthly at a time and place specified by the chair, or at the call of a 

majority of the review panel. 

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

Severability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942. 

RCW 70.104.090 Pesticide panel -- Responsibilities.

The responsibilities of the review panel shall include, but not be limited to: 

(1) Establishing guidelines for centralizing the receipt of information relating to 

actual or alleged health and environmental incidents involving pesticides; 

(2) Reviewing and making recommendations for procedures for investigation of 

pesticide incidents, which shall be implemented by the appropriate agency 

unless a written statement providing the reasons for not adopting the 

recommendations is provided to the review panel; 

(3) Monitoring the time periods required for response to reports of pesticide 

incidents by the departments of agriculture, health, and labor and industries; 

(4) At the request of the chair or any panel member, reviewing pesticide incidents 

of unusual complexity or those that cannot be resolved; 

(5) Identifying inadequacies in state and/or federal law that result in insufficient 

protection of public health and safety, with specific attention to advising the 

appropriate agencies on the adequacy of pesticide reentry intervals established 

by the federal environmental protection agency and registered pesticide labels to 

protect the health and safety of farmworkers. The panel shall establish a priority 

list for reviewing reentry intervals, which considers the following criteria: 

(a) Whether the pesticide is being widely used in labor-intensive agriculture in 

Washington; 

(b) Whether another state has established a reentry interval for the pesticide that 

is longer than the existing federal reentry interval; 

(c) The toxicity category of the pesticide under federal law; 

(d) Whether the pesticide has been identified by a federal or state agency or 

through a scientific review as presenting a risk of cancer, birth defects, genetic 

damage, neurological effects, blood disorders, sterility, menstrual dysfunction, 

organ damage, or other chronic or subchronic effects; and 

(e) Whether reports or complaints of ill effects from the pesticide have been filed 

following worker entry into fields to which the pesticide has been applied; and 

86 Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
(6) Reviewing and approving an annual report prepared by the department of 

health to the governor, agency heads, and members of the Legislature, with the 

same available to the public. The report shall include, at a minimum: 

(a) A summary of the year's activities; 

(b) A synopsis of the cases reviewed; 

(c) A separate descriptive listing of each case in which adverse health or 

environmental effects due to pesticides were found to occur; 

(d) A tabulation of the data from each case; 

(e) An assessment of the effects of pesticide exposure in the workplace; 

(f) The identification of trends, issues, and needs; and 

(g) Any recommendations for improved pesticide use practices. 

[1991 c 3 § 364; 1989 c 380 § 69.] 

Effective date -- 1989 c 380 §§ 69, 71-73: "Sections 69 and 71 through 73 of this 

act shall take effect on January 1, 1990." [1989 c 380 § 90.] 

Severability -- 1989 c 380: See RCW 15.58.942 

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 87
2009 Panel Representatives 

Department of Health (Chair) ____________ Gregg Grunenfelder 

Department of Agriculture ______________ Ann Wick 

Department of Ecology ________________ Debby Sargeant 

Department of Fish and Wildlife __________ Bridget Moran 

Department of Labor and Industries_______ Pam Edwards 

Department of Natural Resources ________ Karen Ripley 

General Public ______________________ Liesl Zappler 

University of Washington _______________ Richard Fenske, PhD 

Washington State University ____________ Allan Felsot, PhD 

 

88 Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Pesticide Incident Definition 

A pesticide incident includes: 

• Documented or suspected human cases of pesticide poisoning reported by 

health care providers as stated in Title 246 WAC, Chapter 246-101 WAC. 

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

• Cases of human exposure where there is concern, but no medical evidence 

to substantiate a pesticide poisoning. 

• Emergencies relating to pesticides that represent an imminent and/or future 

hazard to the public and/or labor force due to the toxicity of the material, the 

quantities involved, or the environment in which the incident occurs. 

• Documented impacts to the environment including ground, surface water or 

soil contamination, crop or other resource damage due to the use or misuse 

of pesticides. 

• Violations of worker protection related to pesticide use. 

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

A pesticide incident appropriate for review by the PIRT Panel includes a case or 

situation where information received by Departments such as Agriculture, Health, 

or Labor and Industries indicates that the use of a pesticide may be related to a 

current or future threat to the public health and welfare. 

A pesticide incident appropriate for resolution by the PIRT Panel is any case 

described above for which unresolved issues remain after agencies have 

conducted investigations. Incidents concerning human health are given top 

priority. 

Adopted April 19, 1990 

 

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 89
Primary Agency Responsibilities Related to Pesticide Exposure

Washington State Department of Agriculture 

WSDA is responsible for protection of health, welfare, and the environment under 

authority of the Pesticide Control Act and the Pesticide Application Act. These 

laws give the department the authority to regulate the handling, transportation, 

storage, distribution, use, and disposal of pesticides and their containers. WSDA 

administers the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the state 

pesticide laws. In administering these programs, WSDA 

• Adopts and administers pesticide regulations including state pesticide 

registration; 

• Tests and certifies pesticide applicators; 

• Administers continuing education requirements for pesticide applicators; and, 

• Investigates complaints of pesticide misuse or misapplication. 

Washington State Department of Health 

Under Chapter 70.104 RCW, DOH is responsible to protect and enhance the 

public health and welfare related to the use of pesticides. This includes the 

determination and documentation of health effects resulting from pesticide 

poisonings and exposures, and delineation of public health risks. The major 

elements of Health Pesticide and Surveillance Section are set forth in 

RCW 70.104.030 and include: 

• Conduct medical investigations of suspected human pesticide poisonings 

and those animal poisonings that may relate to human illness. 

• Provide technical assistance regarding health effects and risks of 

pesticides to health care providers, other agencies, and individuals. 

• Provide community information regarding health effects of pesticide 

exposure. 

• Secure and provide for analysis of environmental samples or human and 

animal tissues to determine the nature and cause of any suspect case of 

pesticide poisoning. 

• Establish, chair, and staff the multi-agency PIRT Review Panel. 

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

health care providers. 

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

care providers regarding pesticide poisonings. 

90 Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Washington State Department of Ecology 

Ecology is responsible for protection of public health and the environment, 

particularly under these jurisdictions: Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution 

Control Act; Hazardous Waste Management Act; Chapter 70.105D RCW, Model 

Toxics Control Act; and, Chapter 70.94 RCW, Washington Clean Air Act. The 

following elements apply to pesticide incidents. 

• Protect wetlands, shorelands, and water including control and prevention of 

pollution from pesticide activities. 

• Implement an aquatic pesticide application permit system. 

• Administer a regulatory and education program directed at proper 

management and disposal of pesticide wastes. 

• Investigate and enforce remediation of incidents involving spills or 

environmental contamination by pesticides. 

• Provide educational and technical assistance to make voluntary compliance 

with environmental laws easier. 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

L&I DOSH administers the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973, 

Chapter 49.17 RCW. L&I has primary responsibility for ensuring that employers 

provide safe and healthful working conditions for every worker in Washington 

state at a level which is at least as effective as the Federal Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970. In administering Chapter 49.17 RCW, L&I: 

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

• Promulgates workplace safety and health standards; 

• Investigates employee complaints; 

• Provides employers information and consultation; and, 

• Conducts training and education programs. 

L&I also focuses on hazardous chemicals through administration of the Worker 

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

Compensation Program, Title 51 RCW, through the Division of Industrial 

Insurance. 

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 91
Washington State Department of Natural Resources 

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources administers the Forest 

Practices Rules and Regulations, Title 222 WAC, Chapter 222-38 WAC, 

pertaining to forest chemicals including pesticides and fertilizers. These 

regulations are written to protect timber resources, fish, and wildlife from the 

misuse or misapplication of forest chemicals. The elements of the program that 

apply to pesticides involve issuing permits for pesticide applications in forests 

and monitoring permit restrictions. 

92 Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 93

Agency Response Time Mandates 

Washington State Department of Agriculture 

WAC 16-228-233 directs WSDA to respond to complaints involving humans or 

animals immediately. All other complaint investigations must be initiated within 48 

hours. 

Washington State Department of Health 

RCW 70.104.030 directs Health to respond to incidents within time periods based 

on severity. In the event of a pesticide-related hospital admission, death, or a 

threat to public health, Health must respond within 24 hours. For all other cases, 

Health must respond within 48 hours after notification. 

Washington State 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. 
APPENDIX B 

Case and Severity Classifications 

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications

NIOSH Severity Classifications

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category
National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications 

Definite Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or environmental evidence corroborates 

exposure, 2. Two or more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or 

test/laboratory findings are reported by a licensed health care provider, and 3. 

The finding documented under health effects are characteristic for the pesticide 

and the temporal relationship between the exposure and health effects is 

plausible and/or the findings are consistent with an exposure-health effect 

relationship based upon the known toxicology of the putative agent. 

Probable Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or environmental evidence corroborates 

exposure, 2. Two or more post-exposure abnormal symptoms reported but do 

not meet the threshold of a definite, and 3. The finding documented under health 

effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between 

the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the findings are consistent 

with an exposure-health effect relationship based upon the known toxicology of 

the putative agent.

Or 

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

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

trained profession or other evidence suggesting that an exposure occurred, 2. 

Two or more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or test/laboratory findings 

are reported by a licensed health care provider, and 3. The finding documented 

under health effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal 

relationship between the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the 

findings are consistent with an exposure-health effect relationship based upon 

the known toxicology of the putative agent. 

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

report by case, witness, application, observation of residue and/or contamination 

by other than a trained profession or other evidence suggesting that an exposure 

occurred, 2. Two or more post-exposure abnormal symptoms reported but do not 

meet the threshold of a definite, and 3. The finding documented under health 

effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between 

the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the findings are consistent 

with an exposure-health effect. 

Suspicious Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or environmental evidence corroborates 

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

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

than a trained profession or other evidence suggesting that an exposure 

occurred, 2. Two or more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or 

test/laboratory findings are reported by a licensed health care provider or two or 

more post-exposure abnormal symptoms reported but do not meet the threshold 

of a DEFINITE, and 3. Insufficient toxicological information is available to 

determine causal the relationship between the exposure and health effects. 

Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 95
96 Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 

Unlikely Case: 1. Laboratory clinical or environmental evidence corroborates 

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

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

than a trained profession or other evidence suggesting that an exposure 

occurred, 2. Two or more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or 

test/laboratory findings are reported by a licensed health care provider or two or 

more post-exposure abnormal symptoms reported but do not meet the threshold 

of a DEFINITE, and 3. Evidence of exposure-health effect relationship is not 

present due to no observed health or effect, a temporal relationship does not 

exist, or the constellation of health effects are not consistent based upon the 

known toxicology of the putative agent. 

Insufficient Information: Insufficient data in the documentation of the pesticide 

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

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

toxicological information is available to determine causal relationship between 

exposure and health effects. 

NIOSH Severity Classifications 

Severity Index for Use in State-based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide-related 

Illness and Injury Descriptions of Severity Categories 

04 Mild illness or injury: Low severity. Often involves skin, eye or upper 

respiratory irritation. May also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. 

Typically the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost 

time (less than 3 days) from work or normal activities. 

03 Moderate illness or injury: This category often involves systemic 

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

normal functioning without any residual disability. Usually, less time is lost from 

work or normal activities (3-5 days) compared to those with severe illness or 

injury. No residual impairment is present although effects may be persistent. 

02 Severe illness or injury: Considered life threatening and typically requires 

treatment. Commonly involves hospitalization to prevent death. Signs and 

symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal failure 

and/or respiratory depression. The individual sustains substantial loss of time 

(more than 5 days) from regular work. Can include assignment to limited or light 

work duties or normal activities if not employed. This level may include the need 

for continued health care after the exposure, prolonged time off of work, and 

limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 

permanent functional impairment. 

01 Death: Includes a human fatality resulting from exposures to one or more 

pesticides.
Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category 

(Modeled after Persson et. al., 1998 and includes SPIDER database elements) 

ORGAN SYSTEM SEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODE 

FATAL HIGH MODERATE 

1 2 3 

Pronounced or Prolonged Signs or Symptoms 

• Gastrointestinal • System 

• Massive hemorrhage/perforation of gut • Diarrhea (G14, sign only) 

• Melena (GI7) • Vomiting (GI6, sign only) 

• • • • 

• • 

Respiratory System • Cyanosis (RESP 2) + Respiratory 

depression (RESP 7) 

• Pulmonary edema (RESP6) • Respiratory arrest 

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

• • • 

Nervous System • Coma (NS3) 

• Paralysis, generalized (NS10) • Seizure (NS5, sign only) 

• Confusion (NS4) • Hallucinations (NS99 Other) • Miosis with blurred vision (NS14) • Seizure (NS5, symptom) 

• Ataxia (NS1, sign only) • Slurred speech (NS12) • Syncope (fainting) (NS17) • Peripheral neuropathy (NS11, sign only) 

• • • • • 

• 

Cardiovascular System • Bradycardia/ heart rate <40 for adults, 

< 60 infants and children, <80 neonates (CV1) 

• Tachycardia/ heart rate>180 for adults, 

>190 infants/children, >200 in neonates (CV4) 

• Cardiac arrest (CV2) 

• Bradycardia / heart rate 40-50 in adults, 60-80 in 

infants/children, 80-90 in neonates (CV1) 

• Tachycardia / heart rate=140-180 in adults, 160-190 

infants/children, 160-200 in neonates (CV4) 

• Chest Pain (CV7) + Hyperventilation, Tachypnea 

(RESP5) 

• Conduction disturbance (CV3) • Hypertension (CV6) • Hypotension (CV5) 

Metabolism • Acid Base disturbance (pH< 7.15 or 

>7.7) 

• Acid Base disturbance (pH = 7.15-7.24 or 7.60-7.69) • Elevated anion gap (MISC4) 

• 

Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
98 Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 

Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category 

(Modeled after Persson et. al., 1998 and includes SPIDER database elements) 

ORGAN SYSTEM SEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODE 

FATAL HIGH MODERATE 

1 2 3 

Prolonged Signs or Symptoms 

Pronounced or 

Renal System • Anuria (GU2) 

• Renal failure 

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

• 

Muscular system • Muscle rigidity (NS9) + elevated urinary 

myoglobin + elevated creatinine 

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

• 

• 

Local effects on skin • Burns, second degree (involving >50% 

of body surface area) 

• Burns, third degree (involving >2% of 

body surface area) 

• Bullae (DERM1) • Burns, second degree (involving <50% of body 

surface area) 

• Burns, third degree (involving <2% of body surface 

area) 

• • 

Local effects on eye • Corneal ulcer/perforation • Corneal abrasion (EYE3) 

• Ocular burn (EYE2) 

• 

• • • 

Other effects • 

• 
Appendix C 

Agency Data Summaries 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Ecology, Agency Data Summary - Spill Program

Department of Health, Pesticide Incidents Annual Summary Report of DPP 

Exposures

Department of Labor and Industries, Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2008






























Agency Data Summary 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Spill Program 

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Action Narra

Benton Prosser 604443 

3/18/2008 3/17/2008 

Roadway – Paved 

Pesticide 250 gallons Burn -open 

Human Factor – improper procedures 

Unknown Field Response 

250 gspillepave

Clallam Ozette 604101 

3/3/2008 3/3/2008 Air Pesticide 4 gallons Commercial Human Factor - Other Potential Pollution /Release Field Response Investigation 

Canis(Marcpesticalong canisthat pand e

Island Clinton 609387 

11/7/2008 11/7/2008 Ditch Herbicide 1 pound Domestic Dumping Unknown Field Response Odor 

neighusing 

King Seattle 604915 

4/4/2008 4/8/2008 Soil Herbicide 1 pound Industrial Facility Human Factor Unintentional Soil Contamination Telephone Assistance 

Seattwetlause in followspraysoil. 

Issaquah 605433 

4/30/2008 4/30/2008 Other Pesticide 1 gallon Fire -Outdoor Other None Telephone Assistance Repo

farm and i

Multnomah Portland 606161 

5/30/2008 6/2/2008 

Building / Structure Pesticide Commercial Human Factor - Other Potential Pollution/Relea

se 

Referral 

Both of Enrepor

Pacific Willapa 608558 

9/26/2008 9/26/2008 

Surface WaterFresh Herbicide 1 pound Public Agency Other Other Referral 

Calle(USFvicinilauncpond

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 
130 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report

City, ERTS# 

Incident Date, Received Date 

Medium, Waterway 

Material, Quantity Source Cause Impact Action Narra

Pierce Spanaway 606524 

6/18/2008 6/19/2008 

Surface Water - Fresh 

Herbicide 1 pound Commercial Human Factor – Intentional Other Referral Calle

Tumwan he

Orting 606291 

6/7/2008 6/7/2008 Air Insecticide Other Human Factor - Other Other Referral Comp

sprayair an
Washington State Department of Health 

Pesticide Incidents 

Annual Summary Report of Definite, Probable, and Possible Exposures 

Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080001 01/01/2008 A 44 y/o female homeowner reports that her pet dog was chewing on a box of slug killer. When she tugged 

on the box to release it from his teeth, the box tore and product flew into her face and eyes. She reports 

that ocular symptoms began almost immediately, followed by dermal symptom within the hour. She phoned 

Washington Poison Center (WPC) and was advised to rinse eyes and skin, which she did. She went to the ER due to 

pain and swelling in her right eye. Pain resolved one day later and swelling was gone within two days. Pet dog had no 

symptoms. 

Multiple (product is classified as multiple classes ...): Metaldehyde 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080004 01/06/2008 A 33 y/o male sprayed his apartment with an OP containing product intended for use on dogs. He 

experienced neurological symptoms about 20 minutes into application to carpets, sofa, and other surfaces. 

He continued applying for about one hour. The next day his symptoms continued and he contacted WA 

Poison Center for advice. He went to the VA Hospital ER two days after initial exposure. Symptoms had 

lessened on interview one week after exposure, but some still were present. He felt that he was getting 

better. Interestingly, he reports that ten days before applying the dog spray product, he had applied two 

foggers to his apartment with no difficultly. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methoprene, S-; Tetrachlorvinphos 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080006 01/14/2008 A 21 y/o female was prescribed permethrin 5% skin cream, during visit to ER, as treatment for scabies. 

About four hours after application she reports experiencing increase in dermal symptoms, respiratory 

symptoms, and difficulty swallowing. She contacted WPCr and was instructed to contact 911 

emergency responders and wash product off immediately. She showered and rested for a few minutes, and 

says her breathing was almost normal after showering, when she spoke with emergency responders by 

phone. On interview with DOH investigator three days after exposure, she reported that respiratory symptoms 

lasted about two hours and though dermal symptoms (itch from scabies) continue, the swelling and difficulty 

swallowing lasted about one hour. She planned to follow-up with PMD but due to cost, had not yet done so. 

Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080008 01/16/2008 A 6 y/o male found a travel size container of insect repellent among siblings camping equipment and sprayed 

himself in the eye. He was seen at ER for mild ocular symptoms. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080009 01/26/2008 A 19 m/o old was found in the laundry room of her home after having sprayed a pyrethrin aerosol and 

laundry stain remover over herself, including face and eyes. She was crying and rubbing eyes and she 

smelled of the pesticide. Her mother put her in the bathtub and washed her eyes and hair. She noticed 

ocular symptoms. The next morning the mother reports that her eyes were swollen shut, and she took her 

to the ER for treatment. Symptoms had subsided by 4 days post exposure. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Allethrin, d1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 131
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080010 01/23/2008 Elementary school administration directed Kinder-2nd grade teachers to spray the hoods of their students' 

coats in the hallway with an aerosol lice insecticide not for use on clothing. The clothing was sprayed during 

mid-morning recess and the school day ended at 1:30pm. There was no prior or post notification of the 

insecticide application, only a note sent home the day of the spraying regarding the lice outbreak. The 

spraying exposed a child with documentation on file with the school for asthma and sensitivity to chemicals. 

The child experienced asthma attacks and missed one day of school. Another student experienced headache 

and nausea. Other students reported headache. Children did not seek medical care. WSDA investigated the 

incident and found coats sampled were positive for residue. Students with health effects above did not have 

sprayed coats, but were exposed to indoor air following the application. The school was fined for multiple 

violations. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

2 Probable 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

080011 01/22/2008 A 72 y/o female with prior health conditions had her home treated for a persistent flea problem on multiple 

occasions. During the most recent application, she stayed indoors while pyrethroid was applied. She 

developed headache and runny nose and sought medical attention. She experienced high blood pressure, but 

also has a history of heart irregularities. The home does not have good ventilation, a requirement on the 

pesticide label. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Deltamethrin, Bifenthrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080014 02/12/2008 A 31 y/o male had an ocular exposure to a moss removal product. He sought health care the following day. 

He was referred by optometrist to an ophthalmologist for follow up. Patient did not return phone calls to DOH. 

1 Definite 

Severity: High/Severe 

080015 02/20/2008 A 26 y/o female student, another student, and two instructors at a community college developed headache, 

dizziness, and other health effects after four herbicides were applied throughout the college campus at which 

they studied and worked. There were other reports of ill persons, but DOH follow-up was limited to these 

four. WSDA investigated and observed herbicide residue and noted the noxious odor around the campus. 

There was one notification flag in an area treated the week before. WSDA did not find any notable pesticide 

violations. The college's maintenance director informed that herbicide use was uncommon and that any 

future applications would be made during breaks when students and staff weren't on campus. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dichlobenil (ANSI), Butoxyethyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Butoxyethyl triclopyr, 

Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Trifluralin (ANSI); Isoxaben (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

3 Probable 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

080017 02/22/2008 A 23 y/o male set off a fogger in his basement. One hour later he returned to the basement for about 

15-30 minutes, forgetting that he had discharged the fogger. There is no ventilation in the basement and he 

did not recall a strong smell. He reported neurological and respiratory symptoms. He sought health care 

five days later for continuing symptoms. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Noctylbicycloheptene dicarboximide 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080018 03/02/2008 A 3 y/o boy climbed on a washing machine to reach product from an upper shelf at his home around 7:30 PM. 

He wore cotton long pants, no shirt, no shoes. He sprayed product all over his body, saturating his pants. 

Mother noticed son about ten minutes after exposure, and reports symptoms; skin red and blistered, like a 

burn, all over his body, swelling of arms and face. She bathed him immediately and called poison control, 

who told her to take child to the ER. Child was transported by ambulance to ER. Rash reduced to torso only 

after two hours and resolved after 24 hours. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

(ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

132 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080021 03/11/2008 A 38 y/o woman was recovering from surgery when a neighbor set off a bug bomb in their apartment 

building. The product was apparently transported to the case's apartment through the air vents. She and 

her roommate could smell pesticide. She developed respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological symptoms and 

sought health care at the ER. She reported symptoms lasted approximately three days. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080022 03/12/2008 A 67 y/o male hauled wood posts treated less than a week previous with pentachlorophenol and diesel. He 

touched the posts with bare hands once while handling. Later that day his hands were red, itchy and 

swollen. Where the posts had contacted his body (clothed) there were itchy welts/hives. These moved all 

over his body. He called WPC late that night, then went to the clinic the next day. The pesticide label did 

not set wait times for handling posts after treatment. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Pentachlorophenol 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080024 03/18/2008 A 39 y/o female drove past apple orchards being sprayed and experienced acute respiratory and neurological 

health effects. She turned around to go to the hospital and reports being sprayed again as she passed the 

orchard. She went to the emergency room. Some, but not all of the symptoms were consistent with the 

exposure described. WSDA investigated and found her vehicle positive for residues of the toxicity Class I 

insecticide being applied. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Deltamethrin, Kaolin, Piperonyl butoxide, Mineral oil - 

includes paraffin oil from 063503 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080025 03/22/2008 A 49 y/o male was transferring herbicide into another container when the tube that inserts into the container 

flipped on the edge and splashed the product into his eye. He immediately developed ocular symptoms. He 

irrigated his eye and called WPC. Three hours later, he obtained treatment at the emergency department. 

Symptoms subsided about 24 hours after exposure. 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080027 03/27/2008 A 43 y/o male was cutting wood at his workplace when a chip got into his right eye. EMS at his worksite 

assessed him, noting eye irritation and flushed. They did not observe foreign material in his eye. The wood 

was identified as having been pressured treated. 

Unknown: Copper naphthenate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080031 04/03/2008 A 32 y/o male farmworker reported he developed gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms after he used 

orchard grass as dental floss to clean his teeth. He sought medical treatment the same day. Patient loss 

to follow-up. 

Insect Growth Regulator (IGR): Pyriproxyfen 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Endosulfan (ANSI), Kaolin, Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil 

from 063503 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080033 04/02/2008 A 48 y/o male inhaled insecticide dust when he put the bag on the floor of his garage. He felt neurological 

and respiratory symptoms along with nausea and sought medical attention the next day. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Metaldehyde 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 133
Case Exp Date Incident Description

080034 04/04/2008 An adult female resident of orchard housing was sprayed as she entered her home by an air blast application 

of insecticides to several pear trees, approximately ten feet in front of her door. Symptoms were mild and 

she did not seek health care. This row of pear trees had been hand sprayed in the past. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Kaolin, Endosulfan (ANSI), Lambda-cyhalothrin, Petroleum 

distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080035 04/05/2008 A 31 y/o female was exposed to an "outdoor fogger" when it discharged inside an apartment at a party 

she was attending. She had immediate onset of respiratory symptoms, followed by neurological symptoms 

after 15 minutes. She sought health care at hospital ER. Symptoms improved within six hours, but 

complained of weakness for the next several days. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080036 03/14/2008 A 30 y/o male apple applicator became ill after spraying for three hours. He was wearing a respirator, but 

said he could smell the spray and felt mist on his face. A few hours later he went to ER for treatment. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Endosulfan (ANSI), Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or 

hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

080037 04/03/2008 A 33 y/o female developed sore throat, headache and difficulty breathing after parts of their apartment were

sprayed for ants earlier in the day. She improved after opening windows. Her toddler son and husband both 

got sick the following day with fever and gastrointestinal symptoms. All three members suffered vomiting 

over the span of seven days following the application. Only the child and husband saw a health care provider. 

Unlikely that husband and toddler's symptoms were related, however initial symptoms of wife may possibly 

be associated with application. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Fipronil 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080038 04/06/2008 A 46 y/o female reports spraying an organophosphate aerosol product on a carpet for fleas. She sprayed 

carpet in shed and it was an old cancelled product she had. After two minutes she started have coughing and 

soon experienced gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms. She then went in and showered and symptoms improved. 

One hour later she re-entered the shed to clean it out and shake out the carpet and reports being covered 

with residue dust and experienced respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiac and neurological symptoms. She sought health 

care the next day. Symptoms resolved about 28 hours post exposure. 

Unknown: Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate, O,O1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080039 04/11/2008 A 25 y/o female cashier at a retail store set down a box of slug bait and the dust , from an unobserved tear, 

puffed up on to her face and into her mouth. She experienced pain and irritation immediately and gastrointestinal 

problems for two consecutive nights. She notified co-workers prior to washing off. She was seen at a 

clinic the following day. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Metaldehyde 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080040 04/12/2008 A 2 y/o female's eyes were irritated after she sprayed herself with product left outside all year. Parent 

rinsed eyes and took her to ER. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Triforine (ANSI); Acephate (ANSI); Fenbutatin-oxide 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

134 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080041 04/20/2008 A 59 y/o male applied herbicides to his lawn on a windy afternoon. He used both a backpack sprayer and a 

spreader. Afterward, he washed only his face and hands and did not shower or change clothing. That night, 

he developed gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms. The next day he called WPC and saw his health care 

provider that afternoon. He felt better that evening and resumed normal activities the next day. 

Herbicide and Fungicide (03 & 04): Ferrous sulfate monohydrate 

Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; MCPA, dimethylamine salt; Triclopyr 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080047 04/21/2008 A 12 y/o female washed an apple, then ate three bites and experienced symptoms. Her tongue felt tingly and 

her face swelled. She had gastrointestinal symptoms and was seen at the emergency room. She had no 

food allergies or history of reactions. The apple was sitting on the counter when a roach aerosol was 

sprayed earlier in the kitchen. 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080048 04/29/2008 A 39 y/o female reported respiratory congestion after an attic in home was treated with insecticide. Attic 

was separate from living space and she did not leave the premises during fogging by professional. 

Respiratory symptoms progressed until she sought health care six days later. This person has history of 

respiratory impairment. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide, Bifenthrin (ANSI), 

Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

080049 04/24/2008 A 22 y/o male worker was spraying for mold at a rental property. The spray hose fell off the hand pump 

sprayer and sprayed him in the face. He was not wearing required PPE. He decontaminated his eye 

immediately with an eye wash bottle and sought health care. 

Disinfectant/broad spectrum for water sanitation: Sodium hypochlorite 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080050 05/07/2008 A 74 y/o male sprayed herbicide at his residence to control blackberries. The only PPE worn were gloves. He 

developed gastrointestinal health effects an hour after he finished spraying. He saw a physician the 

following morning. 

Herbicide/algicide: Butoxyethyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Butoxyethyl triclopyr 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080051 05/07/2008 A 24 y/o female felt light must on her face outside of her home as a commercial applicator applied 

herbicides to weeds ten feet away. She developed temporary ocular and facial irritation but did not seek 

medical attention. Her husband was outside also, but did not report health effects. WSDA investigated and 

collected swab samples. Clothing of symptomatic person was positive for the herbicides applied. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Diuron (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080053 05/02/2008 A 34 y/o male herbicide applicator received an eye exposure when he opened a spray tank and product 

sprayed into his right eye. Goggles were available but not worn at time of incident. Patient sought medical 

care the next day. 

Herbicide/algicide: Alachlor (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080055 05/12/2008 A 57 y/o female at home noticed an odor. She went outside and saw her neighbor applying an aerosol spray 

to base of his house about 20 feet away. She experienced immediate onset of respiratory symptoms. She has 

history of asthma. She later experienced neurological symptoms and went to the emergency room. Asthma symptoms 

lasted about two days, other symptoms resolved about five hours post exposure. 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 135
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080056 05/13/2008 A 64 y/o male went outside to hose off his yard when he felt mist and noted a mild odor from adjacent 

orchard application..He showered afterward and developed upper respiratory irritation. He did not seek 

medical attention. WSDA investigated. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methoxyfenozide 

Insecticide and other: Carbaryl (ANSI) 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Cytokinin (as kinetin) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080057 05/06/2008 A 4 y/o male removed the towel on his face while his mother applied lice shampoo to his hair. The 

shampoo got in his eye and the eye was flushed. He awoke the next morning and could not open his eye. 

He was taken to an ophthalmologist and diagnosed with corneal abrasion. 

Unknown: Pyrethrins, Piperonyl butoxide 

1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

080058 05/13/2008 A 39 y/o male applying herbicides in a hop field presented at the ER with ocular and systemic symptoms 

from applying. He told MD that wind came up and blew spray back in his face. DOH was unable to contact 

the worker for follow-up interview on exposure details. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, Paraquat dichloride, Carfentrazone-ethyl 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080059 05/16/2008 An adult female was in her yard and smelled pesticide drifting from neighbors cherry orchard. She could see 

that the applicator was completely covered in PPE. She developed nausea, headache, but did not seek health 

care. WSDA investigated the applicator and found license had expired and application records incomplete. 

No samples were collected. 

Fungicide: Fenarimol (ANSI) 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Spinosad (proposed common name for FactorA+FactorD) 

(110003+110004) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080060 02/22/2008 A 54 y/o female agricultural researcher developed mild eye irritation after entering a field four hours following an 

application with of a granular herbicide with a 24 hour re-entry. The researcher needed to seed the field before 

rainstorms. She wore PPE but wasn’t sure that goggles fit properly. She consulted an eye doctor. 

Herbicide/algicide: Ethalfluralin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080061 05/15/2008 A 59 y/o male homeowner experienced burning sensation in his eyes after spraying the eves of his home for 

bees. He irrigated his eyes at home that evening. He sought medical attention the next morning. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Lambda-cyhalothrin; Prallethrin 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080063 05/19/2008 A 63 y/o female reported respiratory and neurological health effects after she felt and inhaled drift from 

nearby application to trees in the parking lot at the race horse facility. She did not seek medical attention. 

WSDA investigated revealed negative results from samples taken for the pesticide applied. 

Fungicide: Propiconazole 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

136 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080064 05/05/2008 A 36 y/o male sprayed apples and developed a pruritic rash on his body. He wore full protection. He sought 

health care two weeks after initial symptoms. 

Fungicide: Triflumizole 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Acetamiprid, Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or 

hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080065 05/03/2008 A 64 y/o male pesticide handler developed respiratory symptoms during a ten day period of spraying with an orchard 

air blast sprayer. He was wearing all required PPE but had trouble with a loose respirator for several days. 

He reported that he could smell the chemical through the mask. When he notified his supervisor, the mask 

fit was corrected. He sought medical care for respiratory and systemic symptoms. Systemic symptoms may not 

have been related. 

Fungicide: Bacillus pumilus strain QST 2808 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

080068 05/21/2008 A 40 y/o female had ocular symptoms after lice shampoo got in her eye. She sought medical care two days 

later and was diagnosed with corneal burn. DOH was unable to contact her for further information or obtain 

medical documentation. 

Unknown: Pyrethrins 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080069 05/21/2008 A 27 y/o male at work treated a roof for moss build-up. The wind blew the dust back in his face. He had no 

immediate symptoms but developed a flare-up of oral mouth condition the next day. He sought medical 

care. It is possible that moss-out exposure exacerbated condition. 

Unknown: Zinc chloride 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080070 05/27/2008 A 24 y/o farm mechanic stepped out of the garage and was hit by spray from a ground application to 

orchard. He felt the mist on his face and hands and took a breath of it before stepping back into the garage. 

About five minutes later he experienced neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms. He continued working and after 

his shift, sought health care about three hours after exposure. He reports that his symptoms eased after 24 hours, 

but he continued to feel weak and tired for about three days. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080071 05/27/2008 A 70 y/o male had accidental eye exposure from a herbicide when hose came off sprayer while spraying 

weeds in yard. Wore eye glasses and not protective eye wear as label required. He flushed his eyes and 

sought treatment at the ER. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080072 05/28/2008 A 47 y/o male tried to activate a bug bomb and the plastic release mechanism broke in three pieces. He 

continued to try and activate it and was sprayed with insecticide directly to his face and eyes. He went to 

the doctor and lost two days of work due to vision problems. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 137
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080073 05/28/2008 A 64 y/o male was opening an insecticide product when the lid broke, and product splashed into his left eye. 

Onset of ocular symptoms began within two minute of exposure. He rinsed his eyes and then went to the ER. 

He was referred to an ophthalmologist and said notable symptoms lasted about two days, but abrasion of 

eye lasted longer. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080074 05/26/2008 A 21 y/o male reports rinsing out three barrels of moss control product. One each day over three day period. To 

remove the water/pesticide solution he made a siphon with a section of garden hose and began siphoning 

solution with his mouth. He reported gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms after about 15 minutes into the activity. 

With worsening symptoms each day after repeated exposure he presented at clinic on afternoon of the third day 

and was directed to the ER. He did not arrive at ER. Symptoms lasted three and one half days. 

Fungicide: Sodium o-phenylphenate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080076 05/30/2008 Three male apple thinners experienced systemic symptoms. A crew of 23 was inadvertently sent to thin in 

an orchard sprayed nine days earlier. The crew had been in the orchard about 5-10 minutes when 

supervisors realized the REI had not expired and they removed the workers from the area. All workers 

washed, the three workers who reported being ill were sent to the clinic. The other workers went to another 

block to thin. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

3 Possible 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

080077 05/12/2008 A 40 y/o farm worker was tying cabbage and told to leave as they were going to spray the field. He 

reported the applicator, non-farm employee told him to back to work. One half hour later he became ill. 

Management indicates he was told not to go back in the field. When symptoms didn't resolve he sough 

health care three days later. 

Fungicide: Iprodione (ANSI), Boscalid 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080079 05/09/2008 A 31 y/o unlicensed maintenance worker for a landscaping company began his workday setting up backpack 

sprayer to apply herbicide at a residence. The nozzle was caught, and then the spray tip hit him in the eye. 

He felt the herbicide contact his eye and was painful. The physician noted corneal abrasion. His eyes were 

unprotected at the time. Protective eye wear is required by the label. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080080 05/28/2008 Five adult workers were planting cherry trees when they felt and/or smelled pesticide from an application to 

a neighboring cherry orchard 30-35 ft. away. Workers reported dermal and systemic symptoms, some of 

which persisted over a week. All eventually sought medical assessment. WSDA investigated and samples of 

worker clothing and foliage were positive for pesticides involved. 

Fungicide: Quinoxyfen 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

5 Probable 

Severity: (5) Low/Mild 

080082 06/04/2008 A 53 y/o female opened the door and inhaled some mist during an application to her plants that she 

requested of a PCO. She sought health care and spoke briefly with DOH, but attempts to complete 

interview were unsuccessful. 

Fungicide: Myclobutanil (ANSI) 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

138 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080083 06/08/2008 A 30 y/o female developed systemic symptoms after applying a mix of products in her home and yard. She 

used two insecticide granulars and an herbicide spray. She does not recall direct contact with pesticides 

during the applications. She sought medical care at the local emergency department. DOH followed-up on 

product she had ordered from internet. This product tested positive for mirex at the WSDA lab. Case was 

referred to EPA for enforcement. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI) 

Unknown: Mirex 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

080091 05/28/2008 A 59 y/o female security guard developed neurological and gastrointestinal health effects working in the 

smaller than 100 square feet guard station in which a fellow employee had sprayed an outdoor use only 

insecticide. The employee also left a bowl of the same insecticide in the room for wasp control. The 

security guard went to the ER and health care staff instructed the employer to professionally clean the guard 

station before allowing worker entry. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); 

Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080093 05/26/2008 A 19 y/o female and 25 y/o male developed mild systemic symptoms after smelling pesticide odor from 

application near where they were working. Both went to the ER the same day. When reported to crew 

supervisor the crew of seven people were moved to another field away from the application. No others reported 

an illness. 

Fungicide: Triflumizole 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

080094 06/05/2008 A 20 y/o male farmworker developed dermal symptoms while clipping new growth on cherries in an organic 

orchard. The cherry block had been sprayed the day previous. The worker did not seek medical care until 

four days after onset of symptoms. 

Fungicide: Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt, Bacillus pumilus strain QST 2808 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080099 06/19/2008 A 17 y/o boy applied four times the recommended amount of herbicide granules by hand; to his grandparent's 

yard. He had started with gloves but had removed them sometime during the application and was wearing a 

cotton T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. His mother reports that he was out for about 15 minutes when he 

entered the home and experienced observable gastrointestinal and neurological signs. Product granules were visible in 

hair, on skin and clothes. His grandfather helped him into the shower. EMT arrived and assisted him out of 

shower and transported him by boat to nearest hospital. Symptoms resolved approximately three hours after 

exposure. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dichlobenil (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080101 06/18/2008 A 60 y/o female was outside her home and was applying insect repellent on family members and self when 

some sprayed in her left eye. She felt immediate ocular symptoms and rinsed her eye. Her symptoms 

improved initially but returned the next day. She sought health care and was treated. Symptoms resolved by 

five days post exposure. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080102 06/21/2008 A 45 y/o male was splashed in the eye with herbicide as he filled the concentrate in container with water 

from the hose. He wore safety glasses, but the water splashed up under the safety glasses. He flushed 

eyes immediately and was seen in a clinic. 

Herbicide/algicide: Triethylamine triclopyr 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 139
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080105 06/23/2008 A 20 y/o female was sprinkling slug bait on soil around strawberry plants when a gust of wind blew-back 

dust in her face and she inhaled. She reports immediate onset of respiratory symptoms and shortly 

thereafter dermal and neurological symptoms. She went into her house and rinsed her face. She continued 

to feel bad so she went to ER. She reports her symptoms lasted six hours and that she had used product two 

weeks before with no difficulty. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Metaldehyde 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080106 06/23/2008 A 19 m/o experienced symptoms a day after five foggers were discharged in the single wide mobile 

home where she lived with her mother and her mother’s friend. She had been out of the home during the 

application, returning at 10:00 PM that night, approximately eight hours after product discharge, and was put to bed. 

The home was ventilated one hour prior to her return, but toys had been left out on carpet and in crib. Her 

mother noticed respiratory symptoms and irritable behavior about two hours after she was placed on the 

carpet in the morning. The following day, she experienced gastrointestinal symptoms and was taken to the ER. Mother 

reports symptoms improved when she was taken out of the home and returned when she came back. Mother 

and daughter left the home and stayed with relatives while home and toys were thoroughly cleaned. 

Symptoms lasted about two days. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080108 06/25/2008 A 19 y/o, before work discharged a fogger in his living room He tripped over the canister on his way out and 

it discharged over his skin and clothes. He reports past history of sensitivity to aerosol products. He 

experienced gastrointestinal symptoms within five minutes of his exposure. One hour later a friend drove him 

to the ER when symptoms became more severe. Symptoms lasted about three hours. 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080111 06/13/2008 A 24 y/o applicator spraying apples and reported he had spray drip down his forehead and behind his 

goggles. He stopped and rinsed his eyes. Ocular symptom continued and he sought medical care two days 

later. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Ethephon (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080112 05/28/2008 A 26 y/o male developed dermal symptoms after working in an apple orchard that was sprayed 

approximately 19 hours earlier. The employee entered the field five hours before the completion of the 

restricted entry interval. He sought medical care two days later. 

Fungicide: Pyraclostrobin; Boscalid 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080115 06/14/2008 A 31 y/o male dairy worker presents to ER with demal symptoms. He developed symptoms after he did his 

clean up duties wearing an overall kept in room where product had been applied. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080116 06/14/2008 A 34 y/o male applying herbicides in hop field experienced dermal symptoms. He was wearing all required 

PPE. He stopped to take a break and washed his hands. His contaminated coveralls touched his skin and he 

felt immediate burning sensation. When symptoms did not resolve he sought medical care two days later. 

Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

140 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080117 07/18/2008 A 51 y/o female developed respiratory health effects and light headedness after exposure to herbicide applied 

to her neighbor's land. WSDA investigated and residual samples from her land were positive for drift from 

the application made to the adjacent yard. She went to the ER after first consulting the fire department. 

WSDA issued a Notice of Correction to the commercial applicator for label violations related to the drift and 

for not providing the minimum two hour notification of spraying required by the neighbor. 

Herbicide/algicide: 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080118 06/16/2008 A 27 y/o male licensed applicator sprayed weeds with a backpack sprayer. His back felt cool and he 

mistook leaking herbicide for sweat. He later realized that the cap had cracked probably during transport. 

He developed a painful, itchy rash on his back and neck along with nausea and malaise. He sought medical 

care at a clinic. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Diquat dibromide 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080119 06/27/2008 A 12 y/o boy, playing in the park, walked through a mist of DEET. He felt immediate onset of ocular 

symptoms and bad taste in his mouth. He spit and rubbed his eyes. Two hours later he developed dermal 

symptoms and his mother took him the clinic. Treated, his dermal symptoms resolved and ocular 

symptoms resolved within three days. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080123 07/06/2008 A 44 y/o male developed headache and nausea after applying herbicides for nearly 5 hours on his yard. 

Respiratory protection was not worn, or required. But patient reports he did have "fair amount" of inhalation. 

Case sought medical care the same day. 

Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, Triclopyr 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080124 06/13/2008 A 49 y/o male was applying herbicides when he felt mist on face and under his sunglasses. He reports initial

ocular symptoms began about ten minutes after feeling the mist. He continued working and ocular 

symptoms worsened over the next several days. He received medical care ten days after exposure. His 

ocular symptoms remained at the time of interview, 26 days after exposure. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Dichlobenil (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

080125 06/18/2008 A 56 y/o male pear applicator sought treatment for dermal conditions which developed while he was 

spraying. He turned to look back at the sprayer and the top of his protective coverall came open and 

chemical drifted on to him. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl, Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or 

hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil, Abamectin (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080126 05/15/2008 An 18 y/o male farm worker reported immediate ocular symptoms after a splash of insecticide to his eye. 

Splash occurred while he was dipping cabbage starts into open tank prior to planting. No eye PPE is required 

by the label but this type of open tank application is not allowed on the label. He sought medical care one 

month later for a cyst in the same eye. Unknown if pesticide exposure contributed to formation of a 

chalazion. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 141
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080128 06/19/2008 A 34 y/o male spraying hops was splashed in the eyes when he went to close the top of the spray tank. He 

had ocular symptoms and sought medical treatment the same day. He was wearing safety glasses and not 

goggles or a face shield as required by the label. 

Multiple (product is classified as multiple classes ...): Hydrogen peroxide 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080129 06/24/2008 A 31 y/o male herbicide applicator developed intense eye irritation after applying a herbicide. He wore a face 

shield and reported no known exposure. He sought medical care the same day. 

Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080130 06/26/2008 A 41 y/o male temporary worker sprayed weeds for a county agency with other workers of the county. It 

was a windy day and he was provided safety glasses for protection. Another man sprayed uphill from him 

and herbicide entered his eye. He went to the hospital after his eye continued to swell painfully after 

flushing. He lost three days of work 

Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Diethanolamine (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetate, 

Dicamba, dimethylamine salt; 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 

1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

080131 07/03/2008 A 26 y/o male hop mixer/applicator sought medical care for ocular symptoms. Exposure to right eye 

occurred while washing the sprayer. He was wearing safety glasses and not protective eyewear. He sought 

medical care four days later when symptoms continued. 

Insecticide and fungicide (1 and 4): Sulfur 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080133 06/30/2008 A 45 y/o male pesticide applicator developed gastrointestinal and general symptoms after mixing and 

spraying two herbicides repeatedly over a month’s time. He did not wear appropriate PPE for the job. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Butoxyethyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Butoxyethyl 

triclopyr 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080134 07/10/2008 A 61 y/o man brushed against a leaf from the fruit tree he had just sprayed for grubs. He wore no 

protection, and a large drop of insecticide fell to his eye when he bent over. He immediately felt prickles 

and a sticky sensation in his eye. He rinsed for over 20 minutes and then went to the ER. 

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

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080136 07/02/2008 A 39 y/o female developed a rash and sinus symptoms after an exterior perimeter treatment of insecticide 

was made to her home. The three products all contained multiple plant oils. She noticed a strong odor of 

peppermint in the home. All three products are registered WSDA 25B products but no EPA registration 

number. 

Unknown: Rosemary Oil, Peppermint Oil, Wintergreen Oil, Vanillin, Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 

063503, Eugenol, Thyme Oil, 2-phenylethyl propionate, Rosemary Oil 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080137 06/11/2008 A 23 y/o male sought medical care for ocular symptoms that he experienced while spraying an herbicide on 

blueberry field. He wore goggles but removed them and rubbed his eyes with dirty glove. 

Herbicide/algicide: Paraquat dichloride, Carfentrazone-ethyl 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

142 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080139 07/14/2008 A 14 y/o male was watching TV on carpet in his home at 9:00 AM. By 9:10 AM he reports ocular 

symptoms. He believes his hands touched his eyes, the carpet had been treated two hours before. His mother 

rinsed his eyes, but noticed ocular and dermal symptoms. She took him to the ER. He was treated and 

released. He reports feeling better that day after treatment, but some ocular symptoms lasted 2-3 days 

post exposure. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; 

Pyriproxyfen 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080140 07/14/2008 A 33 y/o male sprayed weeds in the garden with wind to his back when the wind suddenly shifted and blew 

herbicide in his eye. He went to ER and it was flushed. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080141 07/02/2008 A 44 y/o female returned to her apartment four hours after pesticide application for cockroaches. It smelled 

very strong. She developed headache and fatigue and awoke the next morning with dermatologic swelling 

and rash on foot. She sought health care at clinic for symptoms. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; 

Piperonyl butoxide 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Pyriproxyfen 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080142 07/15/2008 A 67 y/o male home owner applied a slug and snail bait on his garden. He developed aftertaste and some 

nasal congestion. He indicated breathing some of the dust and it was windy. He went to the Urgent Care to 

get checked out later in the day. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Metaldehyde 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080143 07/15/2008 A 60 y/o female developed mild ocular symptoms after she accidentally sprayed herself with an insect 

repellent. She sought medical attention and was released from an ER the same day. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080144 07/16/2008 A 12 y/o boy hit a repellent canister with a shovel as he played. He thought the canister was empty. The 

can discharged and sprayed him on the face and eyes. He went to the ER with very mild symptoms, was 

examined and released. 

Unknown: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 143
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080145 07/17/2008 A 36 y/o female, 13 weeks pregnant, her 2 y/o son, a 20 y/o female, a 62 y/o male, and a 49 y/o male 

developed gastrointestinal, neurological and minor dermal symptoms when they were exposed to insecticidal 

mist for mosquito control applied at 5am by helicopter to the campground where they stayed. There was no 

prior notification of the aerial pesticide application to the campground that lasted approximately fifteen 

minutes. The mother and child were in their tent when the helicopter sprayed; the 20 y/o female felt mist 

on her face as she looked out from her tent. The 62 y/o male stepped out of his camper and saw smoke and 

the helicopter flying very low over the campground. He went back in the camper, with the windows closed. 

The 49 y/o male was exposed briefly when he stepped outside to see what was happening. Persons reported 

developing symptoms throughout the day; none sought medical attention. Several members of the same 

party were asymptomatic. WSDA investigated and found no violations for the licensed pilot/applicator. WSDA 

recommended the campground manager notify patrons of pending applications or cancel plans to apply 

pesticides. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Malathion (ANSI) 

3 Probable 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

Severity: Moderate 

1 Unlikely 

1 Insufficient Information 

080146 07/18/2008 A 52 y/o female sprayed insecticide on window sill for ants. The spray ricocheted off the sill into her eyes 

twice. WPC referred her to a health care provider and she saw an ophthalmologist several days later. 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080147 07/18/2008 A 53 y/o wheat farmer/owner was spraying weeds with a back pack sprayer. Weeds were up to six feet in 

height and he felt spray on his face. He developed eye irritation and sought medical care. He was not 

wearing eye protection. 

Unknown: 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt, Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080148 07/19/2008 A 24 y/o male spraying hops complained of ocular symptoms. He was wearing safety glasses as eye 

protection, but apparently received a drip into his right eye. DOH interviewed employer but was unable to 

reach case to determine exactly how exposure occurred. 

Fungicide: Quinoxyfen 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Spirodiclofen, Hexythiazox 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080149 07/02/2008 Two males, ages 23 and 43, were tying hops when exposed to drift from an application to adjacent apple 

orchard, not operated by their employer. Both could smell the spray and shortly thereafter experienced 

symptoms. They reported the incident to their supervisor who took them immediately to a health care 

provider. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Acetamiprid 

2 Possible 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

080151 07/02/2008 Two adult male nursery workers had accidental dermal and ocular exposure to an herbicide. A backpack 

sprayer set in a vehicle was bumped, resulting in a release and spraying of both workers with the herbicide. 

Both were seen by a health care provider for symptoms. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, monoammonium salt 

2 Probable 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

080152 07/15/2008 A 7 y/o boy, his 10 m/o brother, and their 17 y/o babysitter developed bloody noses and respiratory irritation 

after pesticides were applied by a licensed PCO to the baseboards of their home and along the outside 

perimeter. The home had the windows open and ran the air conditioner. Three other persons in the 

household developed bloody noses and no other symptoms within two days of the applications. No one sought 

medical attention and there was no desire to pursue a complaint with WSDA. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin, Bifenthrin (ANSI) 

3 Possible 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

144 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080155 07/23/2008 A 32 y/o male switchman foreman, a 46 y/o locomotive engineer, and a 34 y/o switchman assistant were 

transporting a tank car with 16,000 gallons of restricted use pesticide toxicity Class 1 (danger) fumigant by 

rail to its destination, a tank farm 13 miles from the rail yard. All three men noticed an odor at times during 

the three hour ride. In the final 30 minutes of the trip, stain marks were observed leaking from the top of the 

car, down both sides. They notified personnel at the tank farm and were taken to the hospital for evaluation 

and released. The local fire district responded to the scene, as did authorities with the railroad and the 

destination site. DOH HSEES, State Ecology, and EPA Region 10 were notified. A private company was hired to 

assess environmental impact, cleanup and testing. The estimated amount of release was less than one gallon. 

Although hazmat responders were aware of the contents in the railcar, healthcare providers and the three 

workers were only aware of exposure to chloropicrin, not 1, 3 dichloropropene (81% of product). The workers 

 reported respiratory, eye, and gastrointestinal symptoms in addition to severe headache. Some symptoms 

lasted more than a month after the exposure and all three men sought follow-up healthcare. 

Fumigant: Chloropicrin; Dichloropropene, 1,3- 

2 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

Severity: High/Severe 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080156 07/16/2008 A 30 y/o female was working in a pulpwood farm thinning poplar trees and developed neurological and 

gastrointestinal symptoms. She was one of 14 workers in a contracted crew. She reported a strong 

chemical odor. Symptoms persisted for a week and she then sought medical care. Although the case 

reported one other person had a headache DOH received no other reports. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

080157 06/26/2008 A 45 y/o female office worker developed neurological symptoms after arriving at work. Five foggers had 

been used the night before in an adjoining room. This was more than 10x the recommended amount of 

foggers for the space. She reported symptom onset by 11:00 AM and went home ill. L&I investigated and cited 

employer for misuse of pesticide and improper PPE. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; Cyfluthrin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

080158 07/14/2008 A 38 y/o male care giver was accidentally sprayed through open window/door by a pest control operator on 

left side of face. He immediately washed his face, but experienced skin burning and ocular symptoms. He 

sought medical treatment three days later continuing symptoms. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Bifenthrin (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080160 07/26/2008 A 14 y/o male with scabies developed full body rash and swelling on side of face following application of 

prescription cream to treat scabies. He developed rash from a similar application in the past. He sought 

medical care for symptoms. 

Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080161 07/30/2008 A 35 y/o female vineyard worker cutting grass reported she had gastrointestinal and neurological 

symptoms after pesticide drift exposure from an adjacent orchard. She indicated she smelled the spray and 

also felt the spray. She was taken by local EMS from her home to the hospital about two hours later. There 

is dispute on how far the worker was from the application. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503 

Insecticide and other: Azinphos-Methyl 

Unknown: 1-Naphthaleneacetic Acid, Potassium Salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Moderate 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 145
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080162 07/30/2008 An 81 y/o female cleaned up spill in her basement after cat knocked over bottle. Estimated two cups spilled. 

She wore thin plastic gloves while soaking up spill and scrubbing cement with hot soapy water. She reported 

mild respiratory symptoms and went to MD on a precaution. The fire department came later and did a thorough 

clean-up. When smell persisted a professional cleaning service was called to chemically clean and seal the 

cement. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Dimethoate (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080164 07/26/2008 45 y/o female farm worker developed allergic dermal symptoms shortly after working in an onion field. The 

field had been treated four days prior with Lannate and the REI was met. An aerial application to a 

neighboring farm was observed 500 feet from the work crew on the day of her symptom onset. The crew was 

moved away from the aerial application when they smelled pesticide. She sought health care the same day 

and symptoms resolved shortly after treatment at the ER. She was the only worker out of 11 that reported 

symptoms. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Methomyl (ANSI) 

Unknown: Methyl parathion, Dimethoate (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080165 06/19/2008 A 36 y/o female vineyard worker developed an itchy rash on her hands when she left work. She had seen a 

tractor applying pesticides to pears that day, approximately 150 meters from where she worked. The day 

was very windy. Her rash dissipated after missing eight days of work, but returned the first day back. She 

sought medical care and was instructed to miss ten days of work. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also 

paraffinic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil, Azinphos-Methyl, Abamectin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

080167 07/21/2008 A 28 y/o female temporary worker in a billing office had respiratory difficulty and nausea after a co-worker 

sprayed ants with an aerosol in same building. She sought health care at emergency room At least one 

other co-worker also developed health effects, but attempts to follow-up were unsuccessful. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI); Imiprothrin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080170 08/05/2008 A 2 y/o male accidentally sprayed self in the eyes with mosquito repellent. They were red and irritated but 

were fine once he was examined by a HCP. 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080173 08/06/2008 A 31 y/o male developed neurological, gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms after an alleged drift 

exposure from an aerial application. He reported feeling and breathing the spray. He was transported to the 

ER via ambulance within two hours after the exposure. WSDA tests were positive for residues of one of the 

pesticides in the tank mix. He responded well to pesticide specific treatment at the ER. 

Fungicide: Pyraclostrobin 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Acephate (ANSI), Bifenazate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

080180 08/02/2008 A 25 y/o male applicator developed ocular symptoms after a hose on his sprayer broke and spray hit his 

face. Label did not require eye protection. He sought medical care three days later for continuing symptoms. 

Herbicide/algicide: Oryzalin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

146 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080181 07/03/2008 A 56 y/o male was sprayed the interior surface of an empty wheat storage area with a power sprayer with 

an insecticide. While spraying a breeze blew the product back onto his forehead and eyes. He experienced 

ocular and dermal symptoms. He was wearing complete PPE including goggles at the time, but thought 

product ran down his forehead to his eyes. He sought medical care. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080185 08/21/2008 A 27 y/o female released a bug bomb for spiders in her home. She inhaled some of the mist before she 

could leave the room and had minor respiratory symptoms which lasted about 30 minutes. She called WPC 

but did not seek medical care. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI); 

Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080188 08/24/2008 A 35 y/o male accidentally ingested an undetermined amount of paraquat herbicide while attempting to 

siphon it. He sought medical attention the same day. He complained of abdominal pain and burning 

sensation in the throat. He was hospitalized overnight. DOH was unable to locate the patient for interview. 

Unknown: Paraquat dichloride 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

080189 08/10/2008 A 58 y/o male developed health effects after herbicides were applied on neighboring property. He noticed a 

strong smell and experienced dermal and respiratory symptoms. He has prior respiratory related health 

conditions; he went to the emergency room the next day. A 38 y/o female at the same property reported 

minor health effects as did a 23 y/o female neighbor. Neither female sought medical care. WSDA 

investigated and foliage samples taken from one neighbor were positive. Herbicides were not detected in the 

other neighbor’s property. The applicator mixed herbicides against label indications. Wind records are 

consistent with the reported drift. 

 

The man's health status worsened over the two weeks following the application. His exposure is classified 

as probable for his initial health effects and is not a likely explanation for persistent symptoms. 

Unknown: 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

1 Unlikely 

080191 08/06/2008 A 48 y/o male sought medical care for ocular symptoms experienced working in an orchard. He was cutting 

grass in an orchard he previously sprayed when a branch brushed across his right eye. He immediately 

rubbed his eye and began experiencing symptoms. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyhalothrin, Gamma 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080193 08/12/2008 A 33 y/o sewage maintenance specialist was inadvertently sprayed when his co-worker turned around to 

check leaking pump sprayer while applying a herbicide. The spray burned his skin and dripped into his eyes. 

He irrigated the eye and went to the emergency department for treatment. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Butoxyethyl triclopyr 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080194 08/25/2008 A 67 y/o male developed numbness and altered taste after accidentally applying DEET, instead of PAM, to a 

cooking skillet and eating a small amount of eggs. He sought medical attention one hour later. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 147
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080195 08/26/2008 A 30 y/o female developed respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological symptoms after spraying 

approximately eight ounces of an insecticide on a bed. The mattress had been in storage so she wanted to make 

sure it had no bugs. She indicated smelling the odor, however she did not have skin contact with the 

product. She sought medical treatment four hours later. 

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

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080196 08/26/2008 A 43 y/o female had acute respiratory and systemic symptoms after inhaling bug fogger. One of the cans 

tipped over while activating and she returned to right the can. She had immediate symptoms and called 911. 

She recovered with treatment but had to use asthma inhaler more frequently to control asthma over the 

following week. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080200 05/28/2008 A 20 y/o male applicator developed ocular symptoms while he was mixing a fungicide soluble powder. He 

was wearing safety glasses, but still some of product go into his an eyes. The label does not require use of 

eye protection. He sought medical treatment the same day. 

Fungicide: Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080201 09/01/2008 A 21 y/o male vomited and developed headache after he applied an organophosphate flea and tick powder to 

his cat. The label didn't require PPE. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tetrachlorvinphos 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080202 09/02/2008 A 36 y/o male developed respiratory symptoms when he returned to his apartment and noticed spraying had 

occurred earlier in the day. He called an ambulance and was taken to the hospital.. He was able to identify 

the active ingredient the next day. A DOH follow-up interview was not conducted. 

Unknown: Bifenthrin (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

080203 08/01/2008 A 31 y/o female home health employee cleaned with bleach diluted with water extensively to abate mold in 

the bathroom of her clients residence. She experienced multiple respiratory effects, nausea, headache and 

burning eyes. She also is allergic to mold. She sought health care at clinic and also referred to WISHA for 

investigation. The investigator did not have enough information to do a field inspection and cited various 

regulatory limitations with mold related complaints. 

Unknown: Sodium hypochlorite 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080205 09/07/2008 A 29 y/o female developed respiratory symptoms after spraying an pyrethroid insecticide. She smelled the 

spray and started to cough. She was transported to the ER via ambulance and discharged the same day. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Esfenvalerate; Prallethrin 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

 

148 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080207 09/10/2008 Forty-seven of fifty-four apple harvesters, aged 18 to 61, sought medical care after reporting drift from an 

aerial herbicide application to an adjacent alfalfa field. The incident occurred while many of the workers were 

eating lunch at the edge of the orchard. Some reported feeling the spray; others only smelled it. Workers 

reported primarily headache, eye and upper respiratory irritation, and dermal and gastrointestinal symptoms. 

One worker was asymptomatic. Work was stopped and employees (18 females, 29 males) were sent to clinics 

in three nearby communities. WSDA investigated and detected residue of the herbicide applied on one of 

four clothing samples collected. Residues were also found for an insecticide applied to the apple orchard 

some time earlier for which the REI had been met. Residues of two other pesticides were also detected on 

clothes of workers for which the origin was unknown. 

Herbicide/algicide: Clethodim (ANSI) 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Endosulfan (ANSI), Bifenazate 

3 Definite 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

7 Probable 

Severity: (7) Low/Mild 

36 Possible 

Severity: (36) Low/Mild 

1 Insufficient Information 

080208 09/11/2008 A 30 y/o male had initial eye, respiratory and dermal symptoms after activating multiple bug bombs at his 

home. He had to re-enter for 1-5 minutes after activating to retrieve a cell phone. Later that day he was 

taken to hospital for neurological symptoms. Those were attributed to an ongoing seizure condition. 

Unknown: Pyrethrins 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080209 09/13/2008 A 32 y/o homemaker developed respiratory, neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms after spraying an 

insecticide. She make only one pass with the spray, however she believed that when spraying along a wall 

the mist might have traveled to her mouth. She developed cotton mouth almost immediately and in 30 

minutes she was shaking, had headache, and nausea. She sought medical treatment the same day. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Lambda-cyhalothrin; Prallethrin 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080212 08/16/2008 A 30 y/o female developed ocular, neurological, and dermal symptoms after spraying a plant growth regulator 

with adjuvants. She felt the spay on her face, mouth and clothing. She sprayed product for about one week 

and was not wearing some of the required PPE. She sought medical attention two weeks after symptoms 

began. 

Other (Includes biological controls, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, etc.): Gibberellin A4 mixt. with 

Gibberellin A7 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080213 09/17/2008 A 55 y/o female experienced eye irritation when she got some bug spray in her eye. She said she was going 

to the ER at WPC recommendation. Unable to complete interview. Could not locate medical record at 

hospital she said she was going to visit. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Limonene 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080214 09/19/2008 A 52 y/o male activated six foggers throughout his 2,200 square foot home. As he finished activating the last bug 

bomb he suddenly was unable to breath and coughed uncontrollably. He phoned 911 before falling out the 

kitchen door, where he was found and responded to oxygen treatment. He was admitted to the hospital to 

follow respiratory symptoms and was released the next day. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Definite 

Severity: Moderate 

080215 09/21/2008 A 54 y/o female tripped over an insecticide fogger, fell and it discharged in her face and eyes. She was 

seen at the emergency room. No follow up interview by DOH. 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 149
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080217 08/11/2008 A 23 y/o male dairy worker developed dermal symptoms after being exposed to an insecticide from an autodispenser in the milking room, used to control flies. He sought medical care two days later. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080218 09/03/2008 A 44y/o correctional worker developed respiratory symptoms after he was exposed to an insecticide while 

spraying some bees in the prison warehouse. The spray came down on his face, neck and back. He washed 

after the exposure and even changed his shirt. He started to have chest tightness one half hour later. He sought 

medical care the same day. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tetramethrin (ANSI); Phenothrin, D1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080219 09/09/2008 A 25 y/o male applicator spraying apples developed neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms while 

spraying an organophosphate insecticide. He was wearing complete PPE and still felt the spray on his 

forehead. He sought medical treatment one day later. Work restrictions pended on cholinesterase results as 

requested by the health care provider. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Azinphos-Methyl 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080221 09/28/2008 A 56 y/o female poured pesticide around shrub base per instructions, then hurried at the end of the 

application and splashed product in her eye. She sought health care the same day. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Imidacloprid 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080226 09/29/2008 A 70 y/o male home owner had an ocular exposure to an insecticide with mild symptoms while he was 

spraying for yellow jackets. He was not wearing eye protection, and label did not require it. He sought 

medical attention the next day. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Lambda-cyhalothrin; Prallethrin 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080227 10/01/2008 A 53 y/o female accidentally washed her eyes with her dog’s ear mite product. It is packaged in a bottle 

similar to eye wash product. She sought medical treatment for her eye symptoms and suffered no 

permanent damage. 

Unknown: Piperonyl butoxide, Pyrethrins 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080229 10/04/2008 A 48 y/o male developed respiratory and eye irritation after applying a granular herbicide to his yard. 

Symptoms began ten hours later and he sought medical care the next day. He reported he made the 

application in windy conditions and thought he got some of the herbicide in his mouth, nose and eyes. 

Herbicide/algicide: Dichlobenil (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080230 10/07/2008 A 29 y/o construction worker developed neurological, respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms as he 

treated wood. He noticed fumes from the wood preservative permeated his charcoal mask. The mask was 

not sealed properly. He left work and went to the ER. 

Unknown: Copper naphthenate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

150 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080231 10/06/2008 A 23 y/o female accountant was accidentally sprayed in the face with an aerosol can of wasp and scorpion 

killer that had been left on the cubicle next to hers. She inhaled deeply as she gasped in surprise by the 

spray. She went outdoors coughing, but felt progressively worse with nausea and was taken to the ER. She 

has had respiratory problems since the exposure. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Tetramethrin (ANSI); Phenothrin, D1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080233 10/01/2008 A 54 y/o male Fish and Wildlife employee accidentally stepped on a log on top of plastic herbicide spray 

bottle in back of truck. That caused the ejection of the pesticide up and onto his forehead and eye. He had 

ocular symptoms, washed his eye for 15 minutes and went to health care provider. Symptoms dissipated 

after medical visit. 

Herbicide/algicide: Triclopyr 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080234 09/29/2008 A 55 y/o male and a 69 y/o female, both social workers at a residential facility for adults, worked in their 

offices, which are within the same room. The weather was warm so the windows were open as was the 

door to the outside. A tractor rig sprayed the grounds next to the windows. The herbicide drifted into the 

classroom indoor air and they developed headache, nausea, and irritant health effects throughout the rest of 

the day. The worker closed to the windows sought medical attention. There was no notification of the 

spraying, nor any signage. School administrators identified the herbicide sprayed when asked. Upon 

investigation by WSDA, the grounds revealed damage from a different herbicidal class, which was later 

admitted to have been left in the tank to which the other herbicide was added. WSDA issued a notice of 

correction for not posting landscape applications and for keeping inadequate pesticide application records. 

The maintenance staff provided inaccurate information regarding the pesticides applied next to open window 

and doors; this could have very dangerous effects, especially for persons that become ill because treatment 

is so closely associated with correct pesticide identification. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt, Butoxyethyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate; Butoxyethyl 

triclopyr 

2 Probable 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

080236 10/17/2008 On Friday, October 17, a strong odor consistent with fumigant vapors was reported in a residential area adjacent 

to a treated field. DOH was able to collect information on 16 of the 19 people who lived there. The 16 

people included five children aged 17 days to six years old, four children aged 12-18 years old, and seven 

individuals aged 19-65 years old. All 16 reported eye irritation. Tearing, headache, nausea, abdominal 

cramping, coughing, shortness of breath, and burning in the nose and throat were also reported. Twelve of 

the 16 sought health care for symptoms. In addition, two visitors and an emergency responder reported 

exposure and irritant symptoms but did not seek health care. This incident occurred during application of a 

soil fumigant, through the central pivot irrigation system, on a 150 acre crop circle across the road. It 

appeared that temperature inversion on the afternoon of October 17 contributed to the off-site movement of 

vapors into the nearby homes. Strong smell in the residential area also coincided with the pivot passing the 

affected houses. The residents did not see any posted sign or receive notification that the adjacent field was 

being fumigated. Residents called the police and both the Sherriff’s office and fire department responded. 

Emergency responders did not shut down the application or notify WSDA of the case incident. WSDA and 

DOH learned about the incident Monday, October 20 and began immediate co-investigation. WSDA sampling found 

positive environmental evidence that the fumigant had moved off-site. 

Fumigant: Metam-sodium 

3 Definite 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

Severity: Moderate 

16 Probable 

Severity: (15) Low/Mild 

Severity: Moderate 

080237 10/19/2008 A 56 y/o male splashed moss out in his eye when he dropped the product container on the ground as he was 

connecting it to the hose. He was wearing his regular eye glasses. He immediately flushed his eyes with the 

hose, then again indoors before being taken to the ER. 

Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 151
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080238 07/15/2008 Four neighboring households complained of strong petroleum smell and three adults reported respiratory and 

other symptoms after a home owner applied an herbicide to a small yard. No health care was sought. WSDA 

investigated and found evidence of herbicide movement into the storm drain. WSDA identified multiple other 

infractions. Fire department involved in initial response to rule out gas leak. 

Herbicide/algicide: Prometon (ANSI) 

3 Probable 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

1 Asymptomatic 

severity: 

080241 10/01/2008 A 28 y/o male irrigation district employee was sprayed with herbicides while assisting the applicator. He did 

not wash immediately and developed gastrointestinal and dermal symptoms one half hour after exposure. 

He sought medical attention the same day. 

Herbicide/algicide: Diuron (ANSI), Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080243 10/27/2008 Three children ages 13, 12, and 9 experienced respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms after release of a 

fogger in basement of their home. The three children were upstairs in the home when an uncle released the 

fogger in the basement. Symptoms began within one hour of the release. One child began use of her inhaler 

within the hour post exposure and continued to have wheezing when seen by HCP two days later. The other 

two children's symptoms had resolved by the time they were seen by HCP. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; Methoprene, S-; Noctylbicycloheptene dicarboximide 

3 Possible 

Severity: (3) Low/Mild 

080244 10/17/2008 A 51 y/o male employee of a large retail chain was splashed in the eye with herbicide by a co-worker as she 

tried to take off the cap. He is the manager of the garden department, and was preparing to dispose of the 

product which had been returned by a customer. Immediately after the splash occurred he felt ocular 

symptoms, after a couple hours he began to have neurological symptoms. He rinsed his eye out for about 

20 minutes on-site, prior to going to a doctor. Symptoms lasted about two days. 

Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt; Dithiopyr 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080245 10/28/2008 A 27 y/o male orchard herbicide applicator developed ocular symptoms after he was hit with an undetermined 

amount of herbicide. He indicated he was applying by using a boom sprayer located in front of the tractor 

when a branch hit the boom arm lifting it and spraying his face. The mist came in under his safety glasses. 

He developed burning sensation. He washed his face and eyes for ten minutes. He was taken by his 

supervisor to the clinic the same day. 

Herbicide/algicide: Chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine, 2-, Diethanolamine (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetate; 2,4- 

D, Dimethylamine Salt 

Unknown: Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

152 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report
Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080246 10/27/2008 Three residents (ages 50, 49, and 24) living adjacent to a crop circle, complained of eye, respiratory and/or 

gastrointestinal symptoms when the circle was fumigated. The fumigant was applied through a central pivot 

irrigation system prior to planting potatoes. Initial report of a strong odor coming from the field 

corresponded with inversion weather conditions and the irrigation pivot passing close to the house. The 

home was located in an area of intensive application which may have contributed to reported pungent odor 

for three days and symptoms. Eight fields, located 1.25 miles or less from their home, were treated with 

either metam sodium or metam potassium during the five day period. One resident sought medical care on 

the fifth day for symptoms that developed after working in her garden for two hours. Garden was one half mile 

downwind of two ongoing applications of metam sodium. WSDA co-investigated and found positive evidence 

of drift on the residential property. 

Fumigant: Metam-sodium, Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate 

2 Probable 

Severity: (2) Low/Mild 

1 Insufficient Information 

080248 10/30/2008 A 59 y/o male was applying moss control product to the roof of his home. He reports wind blowing product 

back at him over the hour or so he was applying. He wore safety goggles and gloves. Approximately one 

hour after finishing, he experienced respiratory and neurological symptoms. Two days after exposure, his 

wife contacted WPC and thought advised to seek healthy care, he did not. He reports that the most intense 

symptoms had receded three days after exposure, though respiratory symptoms lingered after four days, when 

contacted by DOH. He states he is getting better and that since his long-term primary care physician 

retired last month, he does not wish to seek health care. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc Sulfate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080252 10/14/2008 A 48 y/o female developed neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms and went to the ER. She had been 

using multiple products over several weeks for scabies 

Unknown: Pyrethrins 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080254 11/13/2008 A 4 y/o male was treated with lice shampoo and the next morning he woke up with red crusty eyes. He was 

taken to clinic for medical treatment. 

Unknown: Piperonyl butoxide, Pyrethrins 

1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080255 11/16/2008 A 61 y/o female home owner was exposed to a granular moss control product when the container 

accidentally opened up as she handed it off to another individual for application. She developed ocular 

symptoms and metallic taste after the granules hit her face. She showered and rinsed her eyes. EMS was 

summoned by her daughter and they continued to rinse her eyes. She refused further medical care. 

Herbicide/algicide: Zinc Sulfate 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080257 11/12/2008 A 17 y/o male applied permethrin cream product to skin (legs, torso, and arms) for scabies. Packaging 

specifies to apply once for 8-14 hours, he uses it over seven consecutive days. He began experiencing 

neurological symptoms on day four, then some respiratory symptoms on day five. On day seven he awoke 

with tongue swelling and his mother contacted their clinic. Symptoms resolved ten hours later and did not 

return. 

Unknown: Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080259 09/30/2008 A 46 y/o male mechanic was drenched with a solution that contained a fungicide used for treatment of pears 

in a fruit packing house. He was accidently sprayed in the face while the tank was being drained. He 

developed ocular and neurological symptoms. He sought medical treatment five hours later. 

Fungicide: Sodium o-phenylphenate 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 153
154 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report

Case Exp Date Incident Description 

080261 12/17/2008 A 16 m/o male sprayed himself with mosquito repellent he found in bedroom and developed a rash. He was 

taken to the emergency department with mild symptoms, examined, and released. 

Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080262 12/22/2008 A 23 m/o female ingested small amount of flea insecticide for dogs. She promptly vomited four times and was 

seen at the fire department. Child was fine after that. 

Unknown: Imidacloprid 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080263 10/11/2008 A 37 y/o male soil fumigant applicator attempted to open a plugged fumigation line connected to deep shank 

injection system. When he disconnected the line, fumigant hit his clothing and hands. He took his clothes 

off and washed, but he still developed coughing and burning eyes and lips. He sought medical treatment at 

hospital the same day. 

Fumigant: Dichloropropene, 1,3-, Chloropicrin 

1 Probable 

Severity: Low/Mild 

080264 12/21/2008 A 25 y/o male and a 37 y/o male both residents of a ten room boarding house, developed respiratory and 

neurologic health effects after indoor exposure to a bug bomb set off in another tenant's room. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pyrethrins; Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, N-; 

Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI) 

1 Probable 

Severity: Moderate 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 

090013 10/27/2008 A 58 y/o male re-entered his duplex one hour after activating three bug bombs. He tried to hold his breath 

during his short time inside but failed and inhaled the spray. He had immediate eye and gastrointestinal 

symptoms. He did not seek health care and symptoms were resolved later that day. DOH provided IPM 

information for ant-control and medical information for his doctor. 

Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cypermethrin (ANSI); Tetramethrin (ANSI) 

1 Possible 

Severity: Low/Mild 
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2008 

City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Outlook Yakima County 312161649 

Fumotoxin Azinphosmethyl 

18 Applying 

Pesticides 

WSDA 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Vancouver Clark County 311853527 

Herbicides Round up 

44 Applying 

herbicides 

156 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Quincy Grant County 311896450 

Mycoshield Tri-fol 

Mixing, loading, applying 

Benton City Benton County 312254923 

Lorsban 4E 75 Applying 

pesticide 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Wapato Yakima County 312112295 

BSP Lime-Sulfur solution 

25 Mixing, 

loading, applying 

Outlook Yakima County 312114713 

Azinphos Methyl 15 During mixing 

and loading 

Woodland Clark County 312159445 

Guthion 50 WSP 45 Applying 

pesticides 

Royal City Grant County 312112162 

9 Mixing and 

Loading 

158 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Pateros Okanogan County 312322761 

80 Spraying 

pesticides 

Prosser Benton County 312160096 

Pesticides 30 

Prosser Benton County 312160070 

Pesticide 25 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Quincy Grant County 312323140 

Guthion 50 WSP 27 Applying 

pesticides 

Brewster Okanogan County 312161797 

4 Mixing, 

loading and applying pesticides 

160 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Prosser Benton County 311895288 

Yuma 4E Intrepid 2F Rubigan EC Fungicide Dithane M45 Kocide 3000 

35 Mixing, 

loading, applying 

Benton City Benton County 311895080 

6 Thinning 

Applying pesticides 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Yakima Yakima County 312324288 

15 Apply 

pesticides 

Benton City Benton County 312161771 

16 Applying 

pesticides working in areas of with pesticide applications 

Prosser Benton County 312130164 

Guthion 5 Mixing and 

load Applying pesticides 

162 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Wapato Yakima County 312250004 

Organophosphate N-MethylCarbmate 

80 Transferring 

pesticide 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Toppenish Yakima County 311897094 

Yuma 4E Micronized Wettable Sulfur 

35 Mixing, 

loading, applying 

Grandview Yakima County 312114424 

lorsban 6 Mixing and 

spraying 

164 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

St John Whitman County 312565815 

Diacon-D 6 Placing 

pesticide 

Quincy Grant County 312159296 

Round-up 1 Applying 

pesticides 

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua
166 Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annua

City, County 

Inspection # 

region 

Pesticides 

Involved 

#of 

Employees 

How exposed Other 

agencies 

involved 

Incident 

date 

Comp

dat

Qunicy Grant Count 311850309 

Guthion Sevin Gramoxone 

3 

Othello Adams County 312112436 

5 
APPENDIX D 

License Types and Enforcement Definitions 

Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types

Department of Agriculture, Enforcement Action Definitions
Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types 

Commercial 

Applicator 

A person engaged in the business of applying pesticides to the 

land/property of another. This land can either be publicly or 

privately owned. Prior to license issuance, a Financial 

Responsibility Insurance Certificate (FRIC) must be filed with 

WSDA by the insuring company. 

Commercial Operator A person employed by a WSDA-licensed commercial applicator to 

apply pesticides to the land of another. This land can either be 

publicly or privately owned. 

Commercial Pest 

Control Consultant* 

A person who sells or offers pesticides for sale at other than the 

licensed pesticide dealer outlet from which they are employed. In 

addition, commercial consultants may offer or supply technical 

advice or make recommendations to the users of non-home and 

garden pesticides. They may also perform wood destroying 

organism inspections. Licensed and employed commercial 

applicators and commercial operators may act as commercial 

consultants without acquiring the consultant’s license. 

Dealer Manager* A person who supervises the distribution of pesticides (other than 

home and garden products) from a licensed pesticide dealer outlet. 

Private Applicator A person who applies or supervises the application of a “Restricted 

Use” pesticide on land owned or rented by him or his employer for 

the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity. 

Private Commercial 

Applicator 

A person who applies of supervises the use of a “Restricted Use” 

pesticide on land owned or rented by him or his employer for 

purposes other than the production of an agricultural commodity. 

Public Operator A person who, while acting as an employee of a governmental 

agency, applies restricted use pesticides by any means or general 

use pesticides by power equipment on public or private property. 

Public operators may act as public consultants. (Public operators 

licensed only in the Public Health category are exempt from the 

fee.) 

Public Pest Control 

Consultant* 

A person who, while acting as an employee of a governmental 

agency, offers or supplies technical advice, supervision, aid, or 

makes recommendations to the user of pesticides other than home 

and garden products. Public Consultants may not act as public 

operators without the operator’s license. 

Demonstration and 

Research Applicator 

A person who applies or supervises the use of any experimental or 

restricted use pesticide to small experimental plots at no charge. 

Public employees performing research applications fall under the 

licensing requirements of the public operator. 

Structural Pest 

Inspector 

An individual who performs the service of inspecting a building for 

wood-destroying organisms, their damage, or conditions conducive 

to their infestation. Wood-destroying organisms include insects or 

fungi that will consume, excavate, develop in, or otherwise modify 

the integrity of wood or wood products. They include, but are not 

limited to, carpenter ants, moisture ants, subterranean termites, 

damp wood termites, beetles in the family Anobiidae, and wood 

decay fungi (wood rot).

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

for appropriate license.

Appendix D I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 169
170 Appendix D I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report

Washington State Department of Agriculture, 

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. 
APPENDIX E 

Department of Ecology Maps 

Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008 

Active Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008 

Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008 
!(

!(

!(!(#0

!(

!(

Clark Klickitat

Skamania

Cowlitz

Wahkiakum

Asotin

Walla

Walla

Columbia

Benton

Franklin Garfield Lewis

Pacific

Yakima

Thurston

Adams

Whitman

Pierce

Grays

Harbor Kittitas

Mason

King

Lincoln

Grant

Kitsap Spokane

Douglas

Snohomish

Jefferson

Island

Chelan

Clallam

Skagit

San Juan

Okanogan

Ferry

Whatcom

Stevens

Pend

Oreille

B & G

Farms Inc

Eighth

Avenue

Park

West Valley

Commercial

Center

Dills Property E Viola

BB Yakima Commercial

Development Project

Hougton Rd

Orchard

Harvest Orchard

Park Retirement

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

4

Pesticide Contaminated Sites (7) Added in 2008 

Legend

!( Confirmed

#0 Remediated Actual pesticide concentrations are not tracked in this

database, and thus no quantitative comparisons can be made

with these data. Data used create this map are current as of

July 2009. Due to the frequency of data being posted to the

Facility Site database, some sites which have received "No

Further Action" status may not be listed as such in this map.

Map Produced by The Toxics Cleanup Program
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Pend

Oreille Stevens

Whatcom

Ferry

Okanogan

San Juan

Skagit

Clallam

Chelan

Island

Jefferson

Snohomish

Douglas

Spokane

Kitsap

Grant

Lincoln

King

Mason

Kittitas Grays Harbor

Pierce

Whitman

Adams

Thurston

Yakima

Pacific

Lewis Franklin Garfield

Benton

Columbia

Walla Walla Asotin

Wahkiakum

Cowlitz

Skamania

Clark Klickitat

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

4

Active Pesticide Contaminated Sites (156) Through 2008

Legend

!( Confirmed Actual pesticide concentrations are not tracked in this

database, and thus no quantitative comparisons can be made

with these data. Data used create this map are current as of

July 2009. Due to the frequency of data being posted to the

Facility Site database, some sites which have received "No

Further Action" status may not be listed as such in this map.

Map Produced by The Toxics Cleanup Program
!(

!(

#0!(

!(#0

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#0#0

#0

#

!(0#0

#0 #0

#0

!(

#0

#0#0!(

!(

!(#0!(!(!(!(

!(

#0

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#0 #0

!(

!(

#0!( !(

!(

#0#0

#0!(

!(

!(

#0

#0

!(

#0

#0

!(

!(#0#0

#0

!( #0 !(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(#0

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

#0

!(

#0

!(

!(

#0

#0

#0

!(

!( !(

#0

#0

!(

#0

#0

!(

#0

!( !(

#0#0

#0

!(

#0

!(

#0

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

!(

#0

!(

#0

!(

!(

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#0

!( !(!(

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

#0

#0 !(

!(

!(

#0

!(

#0

!(

!(

!(

!(

#0

!(

#0

!(

!(

#0

#0

#0

!(

#0

!(

!(

#0

!(

#0

!(

#0

#0

#0!(

#0

!(

#0

!(

#0

#0

!(

!(

#0

!(

!(

!( Clark Klickitat

Skamania

Cowlitz

Wahkiakum

Asotin

Walla

Walla

Columbia

Benton

Franklin Garfield Lewis

Pacific

Yakima

Thurston

Adams

Whitman

Pierce

Grays

Harbor Kittitas

Mason

King

Lincoln

Grant

Kitsap

Spokane

Douglas

Snohomish

Jefferson

Island

Chelan

Clallam

Skagit

San Juan

Okanogan

Ferry

Whatcom

Stevens

Pend

Oreille

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

4

Pesticide Contaminated Sites (233) Through 2008

Legend

!( Confirmed

#0 Remediated Actual pesticide concentrations are not tracked in this

database, and thus no quantitative comparisons can be made

with these data. Data used create this map are current as of

July 2009. Due to the frequency of data being posted to the

Facility Site database, some sites which have received "No

Further Action" status may not be listed as such in this map.

Map Produced by The Toxics Cleanup Program