# 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 Report ing 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 ann ual report is available in ele ctronic format on the Internet at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/Pir t

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

Report suspected pestic ide-related illness to Washington State Depart ment of Health at the toll-free number 1-877-485-7316.

DOH 334-23 0 April 2010

# Table of Contents

List of Acronyms ________________________________________________________ i Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 1
Introduction __________________________________________________________ 1
PIRT Panel Ac tivities ___________________________________________________ 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 Medi cal 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 Ev ents 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 Acti vities __________________________________________________ 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 Cl assifications __________________________________________ 96 Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category ________________________________ 97 Appendix C - Agency Data Summaries Washington State Department of Ag riculture, 2008 Case Data _________________ 99 Agency Data Summary Washington State De partment 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 Agricu lture, Pesticide License Types __________ 169 Washington State Department of Agricult ure, 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-Cont aminated 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 No n-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-Agricult ural, 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 Ident ified 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 Occu rrence 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 Involv ed 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 Illne ss 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 _______ 81i 

# 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-relate d incidents that have suspected health or environmental effects (Chapter 70.104 RCW). PIRT Panel members include representatives of six state agencies an d the Washington Poison Center (WAPC) that respond to statewide pesticide is sues, 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 responsibilit ies and report findings to PIRT for evaluation. PIRT submits an annual report summarizing pest icide 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. Fundi ng 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 providi ng an analysis of House Bill 1946 (2007) comparing reporting systems in Oregon, California, and New York State in response to a legislative inquiry regar ding pesticide use reporting. The panel evaluated and discussed agency PIRT dat a, and invited speakers to present on topics important to their work, including:

• The Work to Home Exposure Pathwa y - 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 Re search 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 2 008 than in 2007. Department of Health confirmed 161 pesticide-illness event s 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-illne ss 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.

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 2

## Drift Incidents. Drift continues to be one of the most frequent types of complaints involving pesticide applications. In agricu lture, 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 incr eases 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 poin t 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-m ethyl 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 me tam sodium fumigants in 2008. EPA is currently implementing new restrictions around use of this and other fumigants that should improve protection of work ers and bystanders. Washington illness surveillance data and community air mo nitoring data were submitted to EPA, which cited it in its decision to increase public health protections. The risk mitigation measures proposed by EPA fo r a two-phase implementation program
can be seen at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/re registration/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 Product s, requiring a license to apply.

With the exception of drift, complaints in 2008 continued to cover more diverse topics and a greater variety of pesticide s 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 mana gement techniques). However, these and other potential influencing factors hav e not been studied. To achieve adequate levels of participation in agricultural pesticide handler cholinesterase monitoring, factors which encourage or di scourage 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 ann ually 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 cont racts with the University of Washington and Washington State University to measur e certain pesticides in the air of agricultural communities. Air monitoring studies focused on organophosphate insecticides in two regions of the stat e and on methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) in one region. These studies have been comp leted 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 illn esses 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 ident ified problem with their PPE (29

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 4

## 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 ex posed 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. E nhanced training for employers in this regard is recommended.

• The remaining 184 cases were other agri cultural workers not specifically involved with pesticide handling. Pesticide drift was the leading factor in their over-exposure. The Department of H ealth 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 expo sures; 70 percent of these were cholinesterase inhibitors. No other agricultural crop had more than two drift incidents involving workers. Data su ggest 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 wo rker protection messages and audiences for targeted prevention work have been ident ified. Agencies are in the process of identifying other prevention activiti es to address specific findings.

Pesticides in Surface Waters. From 2006-2008 Ecology and WSDA conducted astudy 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 tota l of 74 pesticides were detected during
2006-2008. Seven of these exceeded a wa ter 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 c ontribute a section to the report this year. Poison Center data are still being pr ovided electronically to the Department of Health for pesticide illne ss 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 ill ness 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-r elated human exposure calls each year.
These calls remained stable in 2008. Pest icide-related calls accounted for about three percent (2,027) of their total 67,575 human poison calls.

Department of Health conducted 310 pesticide illness in vestigations 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 Depar tment 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 docume nt and classify as DPP. Sources likeWSDA and L&I Claims Unit tend to report a higher proportion of the multipleexposure agricultural rela ted 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, tr aining of applicator s and adoption of products and application equipment that reduce drift. New nozzl e 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 su pport for Washington State University to research better management prac tices that reduce pesticide drift.

Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 6

## 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 t he 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 sp rayers in order to prevent pesticide related exposures and illnesses. PIRT recommends supporting and encouraging a phase-in of better technology and growi ng 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 t he goal of carrying out data-driven prevention programs. Agencies s hould 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 agencie s 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 7Executive Summary I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 8 

## 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 security 1 

## . 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 t he 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 support ed 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 profit ing 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 dolla r of sales ($2.10 for each $100.00). Mill assessment revenues are plac ed in a special fund and used only to support the state’s pesticide regulatory program. T he cost to support the program is borne proportionally more by registrants that sell more in the state.

1 See “Improving Data Quality in Pestici de Illness Surveillance” June 17, 2004, at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/imp roving_data_quality_in_pesticide_illness_surveillance2004.pdf

.

# Agriculture

Washington State Department of Agricultur e’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, ap plicator 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%) complain ts involved pesticide applications and 47 (27%) complaints were unrelated to act ual 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 si nce the PIRT report started. The first PIRT report which contained inform ation on 1990 complaints showed WSDA investigated 408 incidents. The highest num ber 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 R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 9

## Location and Frequency of Complaints
There were significant differences in pop ulation, types of pest problems, and the nature of complaints between the easter n and western portions of the state. In general, Western Washington complaints we re about structural pest inspections (SPI), homeowner complaints about dr ift, intentional misuse, and unlicensed applicators. Most Eastern Washington complaints were about agricultural applications, licenses and drift. Drift co ntinues to be one of the most frequent types of complaint involving pesticide a pplications. 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 si nce 1990. For example, the department enforces added regulations for Worker Pr otection Standards (WPS), Structural Pest Inspections and Chemigation requirements. Potential instances of misuse
are diverse. Most are from residential ar eas 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 investigat ions occurred in Eastern Washington and 68 (40%) in Western Washington. One complaint concerned a request to an out of state applicator for records.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 10

## 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
Westside 2 

## 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 su pport 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 in itiated 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 Stat e Department of Financial Management for 2008.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting 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 agenc y investigates, it may determine that drift did not occur, but may find that the applicator applied at the wrong rate or did not keep proper records. Al though the applicator would not be cited for drift, he or she could be cited for being “faulty, careless, and negligent” or for record-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 hu man 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.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 12

## 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 so me 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 compla ints 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, acti on 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 previ ous 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.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 14

## 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 residu e, 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 wh ere action was taken on the original complaint appears to be leveling off around 60 percent each year. There are fewer complaints about damage that late r 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 R eporting 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 vi olation. 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 licen sed 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 inci dent 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.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 16

## 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 viol ator cannot be proven, no action can be taken. Sometimes the applicator has mo ved away, often out of state, and cannot be located. However, violations generall y give a good repres entative 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 co mmercial 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 appl icators, 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

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 18

# Agricultural Complaints

In agriculture, most complaints with vi olations involve pesticides applied to orchards. This is not unexpected, as orchards tend to be located in more populous areas 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 agricul ture, 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 orig inal 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-agr icultural complaints (27). Inspections for Wood Destroying Organisms were also common (12). Generally, the complainant felt that the inspector ov erlooked 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 c ontacting off-target property.
Complaint distribution has been consistent over the years and points to the need for greater education of applicators, pa rticularly 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 enf orcement 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 R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 19

# Cases Involving Children

In 2008, children were involved direct ly 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 a fter 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.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 20

## 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 pr otection 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 R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 21

## In 2008, of the 12 cases with a severity ra ting of 4, seven were issued Notices of Intent (NOI). Three were drift from applications to wheat. Two were from applications from contaminated tank s 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 case s, Notices of Correction (NOC) were issued for damage to onions where no so urce 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 approx imately 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 f eet from the edge of the treated field.
After investigation by both the Departme nt 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 exposu re as “definite” for three persons and “probable” for sixteen.

The case is currently in litigation.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 22

## 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-poi nt 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 Agri culture 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 a pplication 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 report ed illness symptoms and eventually sought medical care. The Department of Health classified all the exposures as “probable.”
After investigation, it was determin ed 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 R eporting 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 pr oducts 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 tw o complaints about endosulfan drift. In addition, there were two complaints ab out 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 dire ct 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 pr oducts 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 produ cts 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.

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 24

## 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 (untra ined) 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 Co mmonly 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 R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 25

# Enforcement Actions

Complaint investigations may result in th e determination that a violation of state
or federal laws or rules has occurr ed. Generally, first offenders or minor infractions are given a 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 st ated, 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 case s 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 categor y 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

Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 26Agriculture I Pesticide Incident R eporting 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 wa s 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 ca se, 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); Loc al police (9); Local health districts (4); and EPA (4). One case was referred to the US Department of Agriculture.

# Ecology

Washington State D epartment 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. Ecol ogy 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 pr ograms: Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program; Toxics Cleanup Program; Water Quality Program; and the Environmental Assessment Program. T hese 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 pestic ide-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 requ irement 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 Repo rting 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-relat ed 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 ther e 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. En vironmental 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: Cont aminated Sites Containing Pesticides

Ecology is responsible for oversight of contaminated areas requiring cleanup or monitoring. These sites may have been contaminated from leaking underground petroleum tanks, historic or current pestic ide use, spills, or industrial processes. When a contaminated site is added to Ecology’s cleanup list, it remains on the list until it is either cleaned up or requi res 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.

Ecology I Pesticide Incident Repo rting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 30

## 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 site s 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 wa s 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 (clean up 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-Cont aminated 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 a pplied sparingly and properly, thereby reducing the potential for exposure to natural resources and people. The data below is Ecology’s pesticide use da ta 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 Repo rting 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 Associati on. 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 D epartment 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 Imidac loprid 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

.

Ecology I Pesticide Incident Repo rting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 32

## 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 roten one 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 Repo rting 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 applicat ion 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 rapidl y increased. Ecology allows mosquito control districts and government agencies to apply for limited agent status under statewide blanket permit coverage is sued to Washington State Department of
Health. There were no violations of t he 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 Agricult ure 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.

Ecology I Pesticide Incident Repo rting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 34

## 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 fo r 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 stream flow. 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 Repo rting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 35Ecology I Pesticide Incident Repo rting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 36 

## Other Pesticide Relate d 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 pestic ides, 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 su mmary of pesticide-related investigations during 2008.


# Background

The Department of Health Pesticide Pr ogram investigates reports of illnesses related to pesticide exposure. The ag ency 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 legislat ors 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-ag ricultural cases here. The reportalso 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 repor ts of suspected pesticide illness events from numerous sources, including Wa shington Poison Center, (WAPC) the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I ) Claims Administration Program, the Washington State Department of Agricult ure, (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 me mbers as a separate case.

Figure 5 shows the number of individual case s investigated, and the proportion of report sources, per case, based on t he 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 entit y submitting the report to DOH.



## Electronic reporting from WAPC provid ed approximately 45 percent of the total reports, more than any other source. W APC 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, repor ting 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 revi ews all referred reports, and investigates those that m eet 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.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 38

## The Department of Health occasiona lly 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-investigati on. Although many disinfectants are regulated as pesticides under federal law, Department of Health does not investigate disinfectant-related injury unle ss the product is specifically being used as a fungicide (e.g., sprayed on mold).



# Classification of In vestigated Cases

The Department of Health’s Pestic ide Program investigators interview individuals, obtain pesticide application and medical records, and, at times, conduct field visits. Investigators use t hese data to determine the likelihood that reported symptoms are related to a pesti cide 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, Po ssible (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 to xicological 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 observab le on examination by a health care provider (e.g. low heart rate, cough, ra sh, depressed cholinesterase activity). **Symptoms are considered subjec tive 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 (8 1%) 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 involv ing 310 cases (people) met the health case criteria and were investigated as suspected pesticide illnesses. Figure 7 shows the relative stability in the num ber 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 event s, one of which involved 19 cases and the other, 47 cases.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 40

## 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 classifi ed as to the likelihood that pesticide exposure contributed to the reported symp toms. 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, fi ve (3%) involved three cases, (1%) involved four and one (0.6%) involved fi ve cases. The two large drift events mentioned previously involved 46 DPP ca ses 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; 18 8 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 year s 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 Depar tment 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 pest icide-related calls that WAPC reports to Department of Health through the Pestic ide-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 unli kely to self report to a government agency, voicing concerns about possible risks to their job security 3



## . 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 clinic al 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 Pestici de Illness Surveillance” June 17, 2004, at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/imp roving_data_quality_in_pesticide_illness_surveillance2004.pdf.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 42

## Currently there is no good estimate of the extent of health care provider underreporting in Washington. In a Department of Health study 4 

## 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 vi sits 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 pe sticide 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 NIOS H Severity Index to classify signs and symptoms associated with pesticide cases (Appendix B). The “mild” category includes symptoms such as nausea, vo miting, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, and skin or eye irritation. With m ild severity cases, duration is relatively short: three days or less of time lo st 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 sp eech, or asthma attack. For moderate cases, time lost from work or normal ac tivities 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 depress ion. The individual often sustains substantial loss of time (more t han five days) from regular work.

“Death” classification indicates a fatality attributed to pesticide exposure. These are infrequently reported in the stat e 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 emergen cy 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 thes e 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.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 44

## 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 repor ted 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 t he 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 case s 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

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 46

## 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 facilitie s. Typical non-ag ricultural 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 hel ps 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 “seas on 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 cont rol at 5:00 a.m. Campers were not notified of the application. (Severity: moderate).

• A four-year old pulled a towel from hi s 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 symp toms when light winds blew fumigant vapors toward their homes. A temperature inversion occurred during the application. Unaware of what they sme lled, 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 prev ious years, more males (93) reported occupational exposures than females (37). Males and females were about equally represented in the non-occupati onal 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.”

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 48

# Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness

There were a total of 130 DPP cases that involved a pesticide-illne ss resulting from exposures while on-the-job in 2008. This represents 52 percent of all DPP cases investigated, slight ly 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 ex posed 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-Ag ricultural 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 a ffect multiple people. The number of agricultural events has remained fairly st eady 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-worker s 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 pest icide 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 sour ce 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 contac t with spray, dust or fumes; or overspray to a bystander. Also includes direct exposures that occur while mixing or loading pesticides.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 50

## 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 cholin esterase inhibitors. Azinphos-methyl was
associated with 14 ill workers in five inci dents. 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, sp irodiclofen, quinoxyfen, hexythiazox, sulfur, and mineral oil. Fifty-eight cases involve herbicide exposure. Herbicide combinations included 2,4-D (4), paraqua t (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 wa s 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

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 52

## 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 se en 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 m onitoring program, and that 22 workers were identified as having asymptomatic ChE depression. L&I ChE Monitoring Program and Department of Health pl an to cross-check data on identified ChE depression cases. Department of Health al so plans to “back-check” the 2008 and 2009 investigation data with the L&I ChE monitoring program, to better understand the number of agricultural worker s 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 wo rking together to cross-check the information collected about exposure to ChE inhibiting insecticides and ChE depression of pesticide handlers, Depart ment 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 st ate 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

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 54

## 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-o ccupational 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 (lic ensed 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; ot hers 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 dete cted 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 tr ansporting a tank car with 16,000 gallons of restricted use pesticide toxicity cl ass 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, do wn 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 Ecol ogy, and EPA Region 10 were notified. A private company was hired to as sess 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.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 56

## Event Description: Potato field fumi gation 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. A ll 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 o ff-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 wa s being fumigated. Residents called the police; the sherriff’s office and fire department responded. Emergency responders did not shut down the applic ation or notify WSDA of the incident. WSDA and Department of Health lear ned about the incident the following Monday and began immediate co-investigat ion. WSDA sampling found positive
environmental evidence that the fumi gant 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 pr otective 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 anddeveloped 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 cont ributed 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 inve stigation and coded major categories of PPE problems and added text fields to record more detail about the cause of the problem.

3. Identify specific contribut ing 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 investigat ions 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 plausibly 5 

## 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%). Depart ment 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 Pestic ide Program as definitely, probably or possibly related to pesticide exposure.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 58

## Pesticides handlers were identified us ing 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 harvesti ng, 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 proc ess 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 wo rkers will be propos ed and initiated.

Figure 11. Health Pesticide-Rela ted Illness Cases Among Agricultural Workers from 2003 – 2008

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008CasesofPesticide‐RelatedIllness/Injury



## Handlers* Other Workers*

* The lighter shade represents workers with moderate to severe injury or illness.


## Department of Health tracked 16 differ ent underlying factors that contributed to over-exposure ( Table 31 ). Among pesticide handlers ( n =167), the leading contributing factors were lack of requi red personal protective equipment (PPE) and other PPE problems. Among ot her 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 fa ctors 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 tr aining provided by licensed applicators. Other workers are reached through on-the-job training required by WPS, radio shows, community services, and health fair s. Employers may want to emphasize different prevention messages when trai ning their handlers and their harvesting crews. Public health and worker protecti on programs at Department of Health, L&I and WSDA, may want to incorporate t he prevention messages most specific
to their outreach audience.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 60

# 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 pr oblem 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 we re missing both eye PPE and another required piece of PPE. Four work ers were missing at least one piece of PPE and also had a problem with PPE that they were wearing.

Table 32. PPE Problems That C ontributed 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 missi ng PPE were that the employer didn’t provide it ( n =10) or that handlers otherw ise 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, co tton instead of rubber gloves). In seven cases, the handler remo ved 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 sp raying but which is considered handling by WPS. Examples are cleaning applicatio n 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 und er 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. Th is would include cases where the supe rvisor did not provide PPE, di d not instruct the handler to wear PPE, or did not provide in itial training or instruction.

Twenty-nine handlers were wearing PPE wi th some identified problem. These were largely issues with respirators an d 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 c oded if the worker mentioned that the seal of the respirator opened on the side wh en they turned their head, or that thegoggles let mist or drips in through the seal. Poor fit was also coded if coinvestigation by another agency documented an improper fit.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 62

## 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 resp irator 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 un der 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 pe rcent 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 understa nd the potential for injury in their assigned tasks.

No label violation but handler still became ill ( n =53)

This code was used when t he 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 brok e. 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 prot ective. Handlers driving air blast sprayers in orchards frequently reported that t hey are exposed on their face and neck when they turn the tractor at the end of t he 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 r eported that their goggles or respirators did not seal tightly to their face when they turned their
heads at the end of the row.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 64

## 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 in volved 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-methy l, phosmet, dimethoate, or carbaryl. Herbicides, such as glyphosate, paraqua t, 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 loadi ng 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 st atus 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 ce real 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 re lated to agricultural pesticide drift. More
than half of these incidents involved dr ift to bystanders or workers outside agriculture. Thirty-five incidents, exposing three handlers and 101 other agricultural workers, are described below.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 66

## 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 pressu re 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 pr one 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 in cidents the workers could see or hear a sprayer nearby. In 12 of the 35 incident s, 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 as ked 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 su re 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 distan ce 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 notificati on 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 orc hard 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 D epartment of Health compared the investigation notes with the pesticide application records. There were 11 early entries on 12-48 hrs Restricted Entry Interv als (REIs), and five early reentries on 14 day REIs. Again, communication pr oblems 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 s upervisors, a central system of tracking needs to be maintained so that supervisors do not assign workers to areas that are restricted.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 68

## 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 prun ing (8 workers), and vineyard work (7 workers). One large drift incident in 200 8 involved 46 fruit harvesters. If this incident is removed from the analysis, thinning is actually the most common activity among other workers associated wi th 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 factor s was largely collected through phone interviews with workers who had become ill or injured. The Department of Health did not routinely contact employers to conf irm that the information was consistent with their understanding of the event. Si nce the worker is not initiating the call
and often does not want state health sta ff to contact his or her employer, the agency is limited by information that is o ne-sided. Department of Health sees the pesticide application records and the findings of enforcement agencies if the case was co-investigated but the informat ion 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 sour ces of exposure. There were 18 driftrelated cases documented this year, in addition to the 2 large incidents discussed in this report. Non-agriculturally empl oyed 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 ca n lead to effective solutions. Preventable factors that contribute to agri cultural 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 fact or 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 chan ge-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 co uld 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.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 70

## Although the NIOSH project focused on agric ultural workers, the prevention data investigators collect is coded for every ca se. 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, D epartment of Health will present to health care providers at the 2010 We stern Migrant Stream Forum. Department of Health has been coordinating with representativ es from the Washington State Farm Bureau to provide this information to their constituents. There is ongoing collaboration with Washington State Univ ersity, 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 devel oping a county specific datasheet of pesticide-illness case s having occurred in these co unties during the past year, and supplying that data to appropriate contacts within the local health departments representing these communit ies. 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 symp toms. 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 wo rking 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 agricu ltural workers, L&I follow-up on ChE depressions, and WSP inspections conduc ted 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 Messag es by Target Group

Male Hispanic Handlers (in Spanish) • Important to wear all required PPE (especially goggles, gloves)

 Employers must provid e 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 en sure 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.

Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 72Health I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 73 

## Department of Health is incorporating pr evention messages into regular outreach and training activities and plans to shar e 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 pe sticide-illness prevention information to agricultural employers, pesticide handl ers, 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 I ndustries’ 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 Se rvices, Industrial Insurance Services,
and Field Services.

• DOSH has a mandate to ensure workplace safety and health. DOSH develops and adopts occupational safe ty 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 sa fety 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 pe sticide 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 confidenti al 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 As sessment & 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 be come ill or injured on the job.

• Field Services provides support for seve ral 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 Indu stries 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 thei r 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 ho urs 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 pestic ide over-exposure. Although by itself a cholinesterase level depression is not a viol ation of the standard, it is an indicator of exposure that L&I uses to initiate revi ew 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 th roughout the state.


# Cholinesterase Monitoring Results

During the 2008 cholinesterase monitoring season (January 21 – October 11), ~218 employers and 2,013 pesticide ha ndlers 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 me t 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 empl oyees for testing regardless of the number of handling hours.

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 76

## 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 periodi c testing, 21 (7.0%) experienced a depression in cholinesterase activity (action level) greater than 20% which required the employer to evaluate pestic ide 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 moni toring, with pesticide related illness.
The number of pesticide handlers undergoing blood cholinesterase testing in 2008 increased by ~8.0% from 2007. C onversely, 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 han dler 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/Ato Z/Cholinesterase/files/DOSH_ChE_Repo rt07_Final_010407.pdf
The following is the complete web si te 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 requirement s 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 probabilit y 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 penalt y. 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. Fo llow-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.

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 78

## 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 pest icide-related violations from eight of the 25 total inspections. There were 75 g eneral pesticide-related violations which had no assessed penalties; these were ci ted 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 respirat ors, 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 inventorie s, or MSDS; no employee training; or insufficient chemical labeling.

• Accident prevention pr ogram 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.

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 80

## • No required safety committee or safety meetings.

• Not posting safety, emergency, or pest icide 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 Di vision, Claims Administration Program

The Insurances Services Division, Claims Administration Program, processes workers’ compensation claims initiated by on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In 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 mi sses less than three days of work. These lost workdays are not re imbursed 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 obje ctive 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 symp toms. 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.

Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 82

## Table 36. Status of L&I Claims Initia lly 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 lossare 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 definit ion above, most rejected claims were compensated for initial diagnostic and medical evaluations costs even if a determination could not be made to relate the symptoms to the work place.

L&I 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 whic h 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 wi th 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 83Labor and Industries I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 84 

## 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 evaluat ion 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 c ontrol, maintenance, and others.
Occupational exposures are described in detail in the DOH Section under Occupational Cases of Pesticide-Related Illness.

# A PPENDIX 

# 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 Ha zards 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 inve stigations, 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 desi gnees 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 departm ent of environmental health of the University of Washington, or his or her designee;
(d) The pesticide coordinator and specia list 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 discre tion of the governor. The governor may remove either member prior to the expira tion of his or her term of appointment for cause. Upon the death, resignation, or re moval 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 te rm in the manner herein prescribed for appointment to the review panel.

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Repor ting 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 specif ied 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 farmworker s. The panel shall establish a priority list for reviewing reentry intervals, wh ich 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 identi fied 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

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 86

## (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 pe sticide 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 Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 87

# 2009 Panel Representatives
Department of Health (C hair) ____________ 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

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 88

# 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 res ource 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 De partments 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 Repor ting 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 an d the Pesticide Application Act. These laws give the department the authority to regulate the handling, transportation, storage, distribution, use, and disposal of pesticides and thei r containers. WSDA
administers the Federal Insecticide, F ungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the state pesticide laws. In administering these programs, WSDA

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

• Tests and certifies pesticide applicators;

• Administers continuing education requirem ents 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 healt h 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 provider s, other agencies, and individuals.

• Provide community information regarding health effects of pesticide

exposure.

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

• Establish, chair, and staff the multi-agency PIRT Review Panel.

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

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

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 90

## Washington State Department of Ecology Ecology is responsible for protecti on 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 Indu strial Safety and Health Act of 1973, Chapter 49.17 RCW. L&I has primary resp onsibility for ensuring that employers provide safe and healthful working conditions for every worker in Washington

state at a level which is at least as e ffective as the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In administering Chapter 49.17 RCW, L&I:

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

• Promulgates workplace safety and health standards;

• Investigates employee complaints;

• Provides employers information and consultation; and,

• Conducts training and education programs.

L&I also focuses on hazardous chemical s through administration of the Worker Right to Know Law, Chapter 49.70 RCW, and administ ers the Workers Compensation Program, Title 51 RCW, through the Division of Industrial

Insurance.

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 91

## Washington State Department of Natural Resources The Washington State Department of Natu ral Resources administers the Forest Practices Rules and Regulations, Title 222 WAC, Chapter 222-38 WAC, pertaining to forest chemicals includi ng pesticides and fertilizers. These regulations are written to protect timber resources, fish, and wildlife from the misuse or misapplication of forest chem icals. The elements of the program that apply to pesticides involve issuing permits for pesticide applications in forests and monitoring permit restrictions.

Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 92Appendix A I Pesticide Incident Repor ting 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.

# A PPENDIX 

# B

Case and Severity Classifications

National Public Surveillance System Relationship Classifications NIOSH Severity Classifications Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category

## National Public Surveillance Syst em Relationship Classifications

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

. Probable Case : 1. Laboratory clinical or envir onmental evidence corroborates exposure, 2. Two or more post-expo sure abnormal symptoms reported but do not meet the threshold of a definite, and 3. The finding documented under health effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the findings are consistent with an exposure-health effect relationship based upon the known toxicology of the putative agent.

Or
1. Evidence of exposure based solely up on written or verbal report by case, witness, application, observation of re sidue and/or contamination by other than a trained profession or other evidence sug gesting that an exposure occurred, 2. Two or more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or test/laboratory findings are reported by a licensed health care provider, and 3. The finding documented under health effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the findings are consistent with an exposure-health effect relationship based upon the known toxicology of the putative agent.

Possible Case : 1. Evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case, witness, application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a trained profession or othe r evidence suggesting that an exposure occurred, 2. Two or more post-exposu re abnormal symptoms reported but do not meet the threshold of a definite, and 3. The finding documented under health effects are characteristic for the pesticide and the temporal relationship between the exposure and health effects is plausible and/or the findings are consistent with an exposure-health effect.
Suspicious Case : 1. Laboratory clinical or envir onmental evidence corroborates
exposure, or evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case, witness, application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a trained profession or other ev idence suggesting that an exposure occurred, 2. Two or more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or test/laboratory findings are reported by a licensed health care provider or two or more post-exposure abnormal symptoms reported but do not meet the threshold of a DEFINITE, and 3. Insufficient toxicological information is available to determine causal the relationship between the exposure and health effects.

Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 95Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Repor ting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 96 

## Unlikely Case : 1. Laboratory clinical or envir onmental evidence corroborates
exposure, or evidence of exposure based solely upon written or verbal report by case, witness, application, observation of residue and/or contamination by other than a trained profession or other ev idence suggesting that an exposure occurred, 2. Two or more new post-exposure abnormal signs and/or test/laboratory findings are reported by a licensed health care provider or two or more post-exposure abnormal symptoms reported but do not meet the threshold of a DEFINITE, and 3. Evidence of exposure-health effect relationship is not present due to no observed health or effect, a temporal relationship does not exist, or the constellation of health e ffects are not consistent based upon the known toxicology of the putative agent.

Insufficient Information : Insufficient data in the documentation of the pesticide
exposure or insufficient data in the documentat ion of adverse health effects.

Not a Case : Strong evidence that no pest icide exposure occurred or insufficient toxicological information is available to determine causal relationship between exposure and health effects.
NIOSH Severity Classifications Severity Index for Use in State-based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide-related Illness and Injury Descriptions of Severity Categories
04 Mild illness or injury : Low severity. Often involves skin, eye or upper respiratory irritation. May also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost time (less than 3 days) from work or normal activities.
03 Moderate illness or injury : This category often involves systemic manifestations. Usually treatment is provided. The individual is able to return to normal functioning without any residual disa bility. Usually, less time is lost from work or normal activities (3-5 days) co mpared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual impairment is present although effects may be persistent.
02 Severe illness or injury : Considered life threatening and typically requires treatment. Commonly involves hospitalization to prevent death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal failure and/or respiratory depression. The indivi dual sustains substantial loss of time (more than 5 days) from regular work. Can include assignment to limited or light work duties or normal activities if not employed. This level may include the need for continued health care after the expos ure, prolonged time off of work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain permanent functional impairment.

01 Death: Includes a human fatality resulting from exposures to one or more pesticides.Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category(Modeled after Persson et. al., 1998 and includes SPIDER database elements)ORGAN SYSTEMSEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODEFATALHIGHMODERATELOW1234Pronounced or Prolonged Signs or SymptomsMild, transient, and spontaneouslyresolving symptoms•Gastrointestinal•System•Massive hemorrhage/perforation of gut•Diarrhea (G14,sign only)•Melena (GI7)•Vomiting (GI6,sign only)•Abdominal pain, cramping (GI1)•Anorexia (GI2)•Constipation (GI3)•Diarrhea (GI4,symptom)•Nausea (GI5)•Vomiting (GI6,symptom)Respiratory System•Cyanosis (RESP 2) + Respiratorydepression (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)•Cough (RESP1)•Upper respiratory pain, irritation (RESP3)•Dyspnea, shortness of breath (RESP4,symptom)Nervous System•Coma (NS3)•Paralysis, generalized (NS10)•Seizure (NS5,sign only)•Confusion (NS4)•Hallucinations (NS99 Other)•Miosis with blurred vision (NS14)•Seizure (NS5,symptom)•Ataxia (NS1,sign only)•Slurred speech (NS12)•Syncope (fainting) (NS17)•Peripheral neuropathy (NS11,sign only)•Hyperactivity (NS2)•Headache (NS7)•Profuse sweating (NS13)•Dizziness (NS15)•Ataxia (NS1,symptom)•Peripheral neuropathy (NS11,symptom)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 ininfants/children, 80-90 in neonates (CV1)•Tachycardia / heart rate=140-180 in adults, 160-190infants/children, 160-200 in neonates (CV4)•Chest Pain (CV7) + Hyperventilation, Tachypnea(RESP5)•Conduction disturbance (CV3)•Hypertension (CV6)•Hypotension (CV5)Metabolism•Acid Base disturbance (pH< 7.15 or>7.7)•Acid Base disturbance (pH = 7.15-7.24 or 7.60-7.69)•Elevated anion gap (MISC4)•Fever (MISC1)Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report97Appendix B I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report98Signs and Symptoms by Severity Category(Modeled after Persson et. al., 1998 and includes SPIDER database elements)ORGAN SYSTEMSEVERITY CATEGORY AND CODEFATALHIGHMODERATELOW1234Prolonged Signs or Symptomsand spontaneouslyg symptomsPronounced orMild, transient,resolvinRenal System•Anuria (GU2)•Renal failure•Hematuria (GU3)•Oliguria (GU2)•Proteinuria (GU4)•Polyuria (GU1)Muscular system•Muscle rigidity (NS9) + elevated urinarymyoglobin + elevated creatinine•Fasciculations (NS6)•Muscle rigidity (NS9)•Muscle weakness (NS8,sign only)•Muscle weakness (NS8,symptom)•Muscle pain (NS16)Local effects on skin•Burns, second degree (involving >50%of body surface area)•Burns, third degree (involving >2% ofbody surface area)•Bullae (DERM1)•Burns, second degree (involving <50% of bodysurface area)•Burns, third degree (involving <2% of body surfacearea)•Skin Edema/Swelling, Erythema, Rash,Irritation/Pain, Pruritis (DERM3 - 7)•Hives/UrticariaLocal effects on eye•Corneal ulcer/perforation•Corneal abrasion (EYE3)•Ocular burn (EYE2)•Lacrimation (EYE4)•Mydriasis (EYE6)•Miosis (EYE1)•Ocular pain/irritation/inflammation(diagnosis of conjunctivitis) (EYE5)Other effects•Fatigue (MISC5)•Malaise (MISC6)

# Appendix C

Agency Data Summaries

Department of Agriculture Department of Ecology, Agency Data Summary - Spill Program Department of Health, Pesticide In cidents Annual Summary Report of DPP Exposures Department of Labor and Industries, Su mmary of Pesticide Inspections, 2008Agency Data SummaryWashington State Departmentof Ecology, Spill ProgramCity, ERTS#Incident Date,Received DateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,QuantitySourceCauseImpactActionNarrativeBentonProsser6044433/18/20083/17/2008Roadway– PavedPesticide250 gallonsBurn -openHuman Factor –improperproceduresUnknownField Response250 gallons of Rex lime sulfur hadspilled from a JR Simplot truck ontopaved road surface.ClallamOzette6041013/3/20083/3/2008AirPesticide4 gallonsCommercialHuman Factor -OtherPotentialPollution/ReleaseField ResponseInvestigationCanisters along Washington's Coastline(March 2008) – Removed dozens ofpesticide canisters that washed ashorealong the Washington Outer Coast. Thecanisters contain a pesticide residuethat produces a toxic gas when openedand exposed to humidity.IslandClinton60938711/7/200811/7/2008DitchHerbicide1 poundDomesticDumpingUnknownField ResponseOdor was reported by people aroundneighborhood. Caused by homeownerusing herbicide to kill weeds.KingSeattle6049154/4/20084/8/2008SoilHerbicide1 poundIndustrialFacilityHuman FactorUnintentionalSoilContaminationTelephoneAssistanceSeattle Parks spray this herbicide nearwetlands. The chemical is approved foruse in wetlands and he is licensed andfollowing the label. He was filling thesprayer when he spilled an ounce ontosoil.Issaquah6054334/30/20084/30/2008OtherPesticide1 gallonFire -OutdoorOtherNoneTelephoneAssistanceReports that owner of Christmas Treefarm was spraying pesticides aroundand in Holder Creek.MultnomahPortland6061615/30/20086/2/2008Building /StructurePesticideCommercialHuman Factor -OtherPotentialPollution/ReleaseReferralBoth Ecology and Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality receivedreport. DEQ handled the incident.PacificWillapa6085589/26/20089/26/2008SurfaceWaterFreshHerbicide1 poundPublicAgencyOtherOtherReferralCaller alleges US Fish & Wildlife(USFW) is applying herbicides in thevicinity of an area that has a boatlaunch/interpretive trail/freshwaterponds (near Willipa Bay).Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report129Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report130City, ERTS#Incident Date,Received DateMedium,WaterwayMaterial,Quantity Source Cause Impact Action NarrativePierceSpanaway6065246/18/20086/19/2008SurfaceWater -FreshHerbicide1 poundCommercialHuman Factor –IntentionalOtherReferralCaller reporting that NW Aquatics out ofTumwater sprayed Spanaway Lake withan herbicide against his will.Orting6062916/7/20086/7/2008AirInsecticideOtherHuman Factor -OtherOtherReferralComplaint that a tree farmer wasspraying pesticide or insecticide in theair and endangering his family.

## 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 pe t 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, follow ed by dermal symptom within the hour. She phoned Washington Poison Center (WPC) and was advised to rinse ey es 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 fumi gants): 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 experi encing increase in dermal symptoms, respiratory symptoms, and difficulty swallowing. She contac ted 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 af ter exposure, she reported th at respiratory symptoms lasted about two hours and though derm al symptoms (itch from scabies) continue, the swelling and difficulty swallowing lasted about one hour. She planned to foll ow-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-tol uamide 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 131Case Exp Date Incident Description 080010 01/23/2008 Elementary school administration directed Kind er-2nd grade teachers to spray the hoods of their students' coats in the hallway with an aerosol lice insecticide no t 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 attack s and missed one day of school. Anot her 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 residu e. Students with health effects above did not have sprayed coats, but were exposed to indoor air followin g 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 ha d 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 in structors at a community college developed headache, dizziness, and other health effects afte r four herbicides were applied thro ughout 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 resi due 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 brea ks 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 di scharged 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 reac h product from an upper shelf at his home around 7:30 PM. He wore cotton long pants, no shirt, no shoes. He sp rayed 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): Pyreth rins; Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin, mixed cis,trans (ANSI)

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 132Case Exp Date Incident Description
080021 03/11/2008 A 38 y/o woman was recovering from surgery when a neighbor set off a bu g 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 respir atory, 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 th an a week previous with pentachlorophenol and diesel. He touched the posts with bare hands once while handlin g. 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 bein g sprayed and experienced acute respiratory and neurological health effects. She turned around to go to the hospit al 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 ve hicle 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 an other container when the tube that inserts into the containe r flipped on the edge and splashed the product into hi s 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 di d 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 re ported 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 133Case Exp Date Incident Description
080034 04/04/2008 An adult female resident of orchard housing wa s 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 pe ar trees had been hand sprayed in the past. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Kaol in, Endosulfan (ANSI), Lambda-cyhalothrin, Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffin ic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, paraffinic oil
1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild
080035 04/05/2008 A 31 y/o female was exposed to an "outdoor fo gger" 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 hospit al 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): Endosu lfan (ANSI), Petroleum distillate, oils, solvent, or hydrocarbons; also paraffinic hydrocarbo ns, 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 af ter 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 sy mptoms were related, ho wever initial symptoms of wife may possibly be associated wi th 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 organophos phate 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 ou t and shake out the carpet and reports being covered with residue dust and experienced respiratory, gastrointestin al, 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 do wn a box of slug bait and the dust , from an unobserved tear

, puffed up on to her face and into her mouth. She experien ced 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): Triforin e (ANSI); Acephate (ANSI); Fenbutatin-oxide

1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 134Case 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 ev ening and resumed normal activities the next day. Herbicide and Fungicide (03 & 04): Ferrous sulfate monohydrate Herbicide/algicide: Ferric sulfate, Dicamba, dime thylamine salt; MCPA, dimethylamine salt; Triclopyr
1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild
080047 04/21/2008 A 12 y/o female washed an apple, then ate thre e 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 trea ted 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): Py rethrins; 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 we aring required PPE. He decontaminated his eye immediately with an eye wash bo ttle 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 on ly PPE worn were gloves. He developed gastrointestinal health e ffects 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 we nt outside and saw her neighbor applying an aerosol spray to base of his house about 20 feet away. She experien ced immediate onset of respiratory symptoms. She has history of asthma. She later experienced neurological symp toms 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 135Case 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 af terward 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 regu lators, 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 aw oke the next morning and co uld 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 fiel d presented at the ER with ocular and systemic symptoms from applying. He told MD that wind came up and bl ew spray back in his face. DOH was unable to contact the worker for follow-up interview on exposure details. Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenox yacetate, 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. Sh e 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 develope d mild eye irritation after entering a field four hours foll owing 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 go ggles 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 expe rienced burning sensation in his eyes after spraying the eves of his home for bees. He irrigated his eyes at ho me that evening. He sought medi cal attention the next morning. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fu migants): 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 ra ce horse facility. She did no t 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

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 136Case Exp Date Incident Description
080064 05/05/2008 A 36 y/o male sprayed apples and developed a prurit ic 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 hydrocarbo ns, 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 o rchard 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 respirator y 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 buil d-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 ga rage 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 be fore 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 expo sure. 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 re quired. 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 an d 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 137Case Exp Date Incident Description
080073 05/28/2008 A 64 y/o male was opening an insecticide product when the lid broke, and produc t splashed into his left eye. Onset of ocular symptoms began within two minute of ex posure. 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 re spiratory symptoms af ter 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 se nt 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 la ndscaping company began his workday setting up backpack sprayer to apply herbicide at a reside nce. The nozzle was caught, and then the spray tip hit him in the eye. He felt the herbicide contact his ey e and was painful. The physician note d corneal abrasion. His eyes were unprotected at the time. Protective eye wear is required by the label. Herbicide/algicide: Glyphosa te, isopropylamine salt
1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild
080080 05/28/2008 Five adult workers were plan ting cherry trees when they felt and/or smelled pesticide from an application to a neighboring cherry orchard 30-35 ft. away. Workers re ported 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

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 138Case Exp Date Incident Description
080083 06/08/2008 A 30 y/o female developed systemic symptoms af ter 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 test ed 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 neurol ogical and gastrointestinal he alth 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 in structed the employer to pr ofessionally clean the guard station before allowing worker entry. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pipe ronyl 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 anothe r 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 sympto ms 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 am ount 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 neur ological signs. Product granules were visible in hair, on skin and clothes. His grandf ather helped him into the shower. EM T arrived and assisted him out of shower and transported him by boat to nearest hospital . Symptoms resolved approx imately 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 a pplying insect repellent on fa mily members and self when some sprayed in her left eye. She felt immediate ocular symptoms an d 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-tol uamide and other isomers, N,N1 Definite Severity: Low/Mild
080102 06/21/2008 A 45 y/o male was splashed in the eye with herb icide 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 139Case 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 imme diate onset of respirator y 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 afte r 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 beha vior about two hours after she was placed on the carpet in the morning. The following day, she experienced ga strointestinal 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 stay ed 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 tri pped 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 se vere. Symptoms lasted about three hours.
1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild
080111 06/13/2008 A 24 y/o applicator spraying apples and report ed he had spray drip down his forehead and behind his goggles. He stopped and rinsed his eyes. Ocular sympto m 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 th e 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 wi th 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 fiel d 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

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 140Case Exp Date Incident Description
080117 07/18/2008 A 51 y/o female developed respiratory health effects and light headedness after exposure to herbicide applie d to her neighbor's land. WSDA investig ated 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 notifica tion 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 weed s 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 mala ise. 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 thro ugh a mist of DEET. He felt immediate onset of ocular symptoms and bad taste in his mouth. He spit and ru bbed his eyes. Two hours later he developed dermal symptoms and his mother took him the clinic. Trea ted, his dermal symptoms resolved and ocular symptoms resolved within three days. Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-tol uamide and other isomers, N,N1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild
080123 07/06/2008 A 44 y/o male developed headache and nausea af ter applying herbicides for nearly 5 hours on his yard. Respiratory protection was not worn, or required. But pati ent 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 fe lt 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 se veral 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 treatm ent for dermal conditions wh ich 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, alipha tic 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 ca bbage 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 141Case 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 inte nse eye irritation after applying a herbicide. He wore a fa ce 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 fo r a county agency with other workers of the county. It was a windy day and he was provided safety glasses fo r protection. Another man sprayed uphill from him and herbicide entered his eye. He went to the hospit al after his eye continued to swell painfully after flushing. He lost three days of work Herbicide/algicide: Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyace tate; Diethanolamine (2,4-d ichlorophenoxy)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 me dical 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 late r 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 ey e. 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 symp toms 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 regist ered 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-phenyl ethyl propionate, Rosemary Oil
1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild
080137 06/11/2008 A 23 y/o male sought medical care for ocular sy mptoms that he experienced whil e 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

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 142Case 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 ca rpet had been treated two hours before. His mother rinsed his eyes, but noticed ocular and dermal symp toms. She took him to the ER. He was treated and released. He reports feeling better that day after trea tment, 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: Glyphosa te, 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 aw oke the next morning with dermatologic swelling and rash on foot. She sought heal th 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 sn ail bait on his garden. He developed aftertaste and some nasal congestion. He indicated breathin g 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-tol uamide and other isomers, N,N1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild
080144 07/16/2008 A 12 y/o boy hit a repellent canister with a shov el 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 143Case 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 ou tside 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 wi th a back pack sprayer. Weeds were up to six feet in height and he felt spray on his fa ce. 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 wear ing safety glasses as eye protection, but apparently received a drip into his ri ght 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 irritati on 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 desi re to pursue a complaint with WSDA. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Cyfluthrin, Bifenthrin (ANSI)

3 Possible Severity: (3) Low/Mild

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 144Case Exp Date Incident Description
080155 07/23/2008 A 32 y/o male switchman foreman, a 46 y/o lo comotive 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 ra il 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 ta nk 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 Ecol ogy, 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 fa rm thinning poplar trees and developed neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms. She was one of 14 worker s 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 headac he 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 neurol ogical symptoms after arriving at work. Five foggers had been used the night before in an adjoining room. Th is was more than 10x the recommended amount of foggers for the space. She reported sy mptom 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 fumigant s): Pyrethrins; Piperonyl butoxide; Cyfluthrin

1 Possible Severity: Moderate
080158 07/14/2008 A 38 y/o male care giver was accidentally spraye d through open window/door by a pest control operator on left side of face. He immediately washed his face, bu t 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 ra sh and swelling on side of fa ce 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 adjace nt orchard. She indicated she smelled the spray and also felt the spray. She was taken by local EMS from he r 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 145Case Exp Date Incident Description
080162 07/30/2008 An 81 y/o female cleaned up spill in her baseme nt 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 precauti on. 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 de rmal symptoms shortly after work ing in an onion field. The field had been treated four days prior with Lannate and the REI was met. An ae rial 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 smel led 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 it chy rash on her hands when she left work. She had seen a tractor applying pesticides to pears that day, appr oximately 150 meters from where she worked. The day was very windy. Her rash dissipated after missing eight days of work, bu t 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, pa raffinic oil, Azinphos-Methyl, Abamectin (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Moderate
080167 07/21/2008 A 28 y/o female temporary worker in a billing of fice 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. Th ey 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 sympto ms after an alleged drift exposure from an aerial a pplication. He reported feeling and breath ing 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 symp toms after a hose on his sprayer broke and spray hit his face. Label did not require eye protection. He sought me dical care three days later for continuing symptoms. Herbicide/algicide: Oryzalin (ANSI)

1 Probable Severity: Low/Mild

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 146Case 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 prod uct back onto his forehead and eyes. He experienced ocular and dermal sy mptoms. He was wearing complete PPE incl uding 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 spider s in her home. She inhaled some of the mist before she could leave the room and had minor respiratory sympto ms which lasted about 30 minutes. She called WPC but did not seek medical care. Insecticide (excluding solely IGR and fumigants): Pipe ronyl 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 undeter mined amount of paraquat herbicide while attempting to siphon it. He sought medical attention the same da y. 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 herb icides 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 da y. 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 herbic ides against label indicati ons. 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 expl anation 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 in advertently 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 tast e after accidentally applying DEET, instead of PAM, to a cooking skillet and eating a smal l amount of eggs. He sought medical attention one hour later. Insect repellant: Diethyl-meta-tol uamide and other isomers, N,N1 Possible Severity: Low/Mild

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 147Case Exp Date Incident Description
080195 08/26/2008 A 30 y/o female developed respiratory, gast rointestinal, 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 system ic 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 symp toms 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 de veloped headache after he applied an orga nophosphate 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 wh en he returned to his apartm ent and noticed spraying had occurred earlier in the day. He called an ambulance and was taken to the ho spital.. 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 effect s, nausea, headache and burning eyes. She also is allergic to mold. She sought he alth care at clinic and al so 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

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 148Case 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 ad jacent alfalfa field. The incident occurred while ma ny 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 ir ritation, and dermal and gastrointestinal symptoms. One worker was asymptomatic. Work was stopped and empl oyees (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. Residu es 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 de rmal 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 develope d respiratory, neurological and gastroin testinal 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 de veloped 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 fu migants): 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, mout h 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, pl ant 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 he r 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 hi s 2,200 square foot home. As he finished activating the las t bug bomb he suddenly was unable to breath and coughed unc ontrollably. 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 disc harged 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 149Case Exp Date Incident Description
080217 08/11/2008 A 23 y/o male dairy worker developed dermal sy mptoms 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 fu migants): 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 de veloped neurological and gastro intestinal symptoms while spraying an organophosphate insectic ide. He was wearing complete PPE and still felt the spray on his forehead. He sought medical treatment one day later. Wo rk 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 exposu re 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 fu migants): 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 irri tation after applying a granular herbicide to his yard. Symptoms began ten hours later and he sought medica l 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 neurol ogical, 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

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 150Case Exp Date Incident Description
080231 10/06/2008 A 23 y/o female accountant was accidentally spra yed 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 progressive ly 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 accide ntally 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 weathe r 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 me dical attention. There was no notification of the spraying, nor any signage. School administrators identified the herb icide 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 fo r keeping inadequate pesticide application records. The maintenance staff provided inaccura te 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 adja cent 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 th e Sherriff’s office and fire department responded. Emergency responders did not shut down the applicatio n or notify WSDA of the case incident. WSDA and DOH learned about the incident Mond ay, 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 151Case Exp Date Incident Description
080238 07/15/2008 Four neighboring households complained of stro ng petroleum smell and three adults reported respiratory and other symptoms after a home owner a pplied an herbicide to a small yard. No health care was sought. WSDA investigated and found evidence of herbicide movement in to 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 di d not wash immediately and developed gastrointestinal an d 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 gastroin testinal 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 wh eezing 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. Immedi ately after the splash occurred he felt ocular symptoms, after a couple hours he began to have neur ological 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 develo ped 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 liftin g 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

Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 152Case Exp Date Incident Description 080246 10/27/2008 Three residents (ages 50, 49, and 24) living adjacent to a crop circ le, complained of eye, respiratory and/o r gastrointestinal symptoms when the circle was fumiga ted. 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 th e 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 potass ium 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, Potass ium 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-ter m primary care physician retired last month, he does no t 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 gast rointestinal 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 anot her individual for application. She developed ocular symptoms and metallic taste after the granules hit he r 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 solu tion 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 153Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 154 Case Exp Date Incident Description
080261 12/17/2008 A 16 m/o male sprayed himself with mosquito re pellent 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-tol uamide 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 li ne connected to deep shank injection system. When he disconnected the line, fumiga nt hit his clothing and hands. He took his clothes off and washed, but he still develope d 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 resident s of a ten room boarding hous e, 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 th e 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/MildWashington State Department of Labor and Industries, Summary of Pesticide Inspections, 2008City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusinessOutlookYakima County312161649FumotoxinAzinphosmethyl18ApplyingPesticidesWSDA6/30/20087/23/2008Repeat Serious:No written respiratoryprotection program:$6300.00No medical evaluationfor respirator users:$4500.00No records for kept:$900.00Serious:Pesticide were not usedas directed by the labeland a minor was allowedto apply a restricted usepesticide: $3150.00No training forhazardous chemicals:penalty combined withprevious citation.No procedures forrespirator fit testing:$450.00Employees were notprovided withappropriate respirators:$3150.00General Citation:Incomplete chemicalinventory: $0.00ReferralDeciduoustree fruitorchardsAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report155City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusinessEmployer did not providespecific informationabout applications in thesame location specifiedby the safety poster:$0.00Total AssessedPenalties$18450.00VancouverClark County311853527HerbicidesRound up44Applyingherbicides4/22/20087/1/2008Serious CitationNo MSDS: $1000.00No training on hazardouschemicals: $1000.00Employer did not ensurethat portable or plumbedeyewashes wereaccessible: $200.00no PPE for eyes an face:$1000.00General Citation:No medical exam forrespirators: $0.00No information provide toemployees who werevoluntarily usingrespirators: $0.00No labeling onsecondary containers ofpesticides: $0.00Total AssessedReferralDairyAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report156City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusinessPenalties$3200QuincyGrant County311896450MycoshieldTri-folMixing,loading,applying5/13/20085/16/2008Serious Citation:No emergency eyewash:$320.00Total AssessedPenalties$320.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsBenton CityBenton County312254923Lorsban 4E75Applyingpesticide7/14/20087/182008Serious:Employer did notestablish aCholinesterase medicalmonitoring program:$150.00Employer did not makemedical monitoringavailable required by theCholinesterase program:$150.00General:No written hazardcommunication program:$0.00No written respiratoryprogram: $0.00No record keeping forrespirator users:$0.00Total AssessedPenalties$300.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report157City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusinessWapatoYakima County312112295BSP Lime-Sulfursolution25Mixing,loading,applying5/30/20086/2/2008Serious Citation:No emergency eyewash:$200.00General Citations:No decontamination areafor PPE: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$200.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsOutlookYakima County312114713Azinphos Methyl15During mixingand loading6/3/20086/3/2008Serious Citation:Employer did not provideA portable or plumbedeyewash: $100.00Total AssessedPenalties$100.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitOrchardWoodlandClark County312159445Guthion 50 WSP45Applyingpesticides8/8/20088/12/2008Serious Citation:No plumbed or portableemergency eyewash:$100.00Penalties Assessed$100.00PlannedBerry cropsRoyal CityGrant County3121121629Mixing andLoading5/27/20085/30/2008Serious:No emergency eyewash:$100.00Total AssessedPenalties$100.00PlannedFresh FruitsandVegetablesAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report158City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusinessPaterosOkanogan County31232276180Sprayingpesticides8/6/20088/12/2008General Citation:No place for employeesto decon their PPE:$0.00No chemical list:$0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsProsserBenton County312160096Pesticides306/16/20086/16/2008General CitationNo written respiratorprogram:$0.00No medical evaluationsfor respirator user: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedWines andWineriesProsserBenton County312160070Pesticide256/18/20086/18/2008General Citation:No written hazardcommunication program:$0.00No Material Safety DataSheets: $0.00No chemical inventory:$0.00No PPE assessmen:$0.00No written respiratorprogram : $0.00Total AssessedPenaltiesPlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report159City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusiness$0.00QuincyGrant County312323140Guthion 50 WSP27Applyingpesticides8/8/20088/12/2008General Citation:No change out schedulefor respirator users:$0.00No medical evaluationsfor respirator user $0.00No pesticide recordkeeping:$0.00No pesticide safetyposter:$0.00No place for employeesto decon their PPE:$0.00No written hazardcommunication program:$0.00No pesticide warningposting:$0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsBrewsterOkanogan County3121617974Mixing,loading andapplyingpesticides6/26/20087/2/2008General Citation:No written respiratorprogram: $0.00No respirator programrecords :$0.00No medical evaluationfor respirator use: $0.00Total AssessedPenaltiesPlannedCroppreparationservicesAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report160City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusiness$0.00ProsserBenton County311895288Yuma 4EIntrepid 2FRubigan ECFungicideDithane M45Kocide 300035Mixing,loading,applying5/8/20085/8/2008General:No hand towels or soapin mixing area: $0.00Employer did notprovidea site for employeedecontamination: $0.00No respirator change outschedule: $0.00No place for employeesto wash their PPE beforeuse: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitOrchardApples---Benton CityBenton County3118950806ThinningApplyingpesticides5/7/20085/7/2008General:No written hazardcommunication program$0.00Pesticide record noreadily accessible: $0.00No written respiratoryprogram: $0.00No medical evaluationfor respirator users:$0.00No respirator fit-testprocedures:$0.00Total AssessedPenaltiesPlannedDeciduoustree fruitOrchardAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report161City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusiness$0.00YakimaYakima County31232428815Applypesticides8/18/20088/28/2008General:No written hazardcommunication program$0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00ReferralFruit andCold StorageBenton CityBenton County31216177116Applyingpesticidesworking inareas of withpesticideapplications6/30/20086/30/2008General:No pesticide applicationinformation posted:$0.00No written hazardcommunication program$0.00No written respiratoryprogram: $0.00No record keeping forrespirator users:$0.00No medical evaluationfor respirator users:$0.00No fit testing forrespirators: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedGrapesVineyardsProsserBenton County312130164Guthion5Mixing andloadApplyingpesticides6//2/20086//2/2008General CitationsNo pesticide safetyposter: $0.00No chemical inventory:PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report162City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusiness$0.00No fit testing forrespirator users:$0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00WapatoYakima County312250004OrganophosphateN-MethylCarbmate80Transferringpesticide7/14/20087/14/2008General CitationsNo water for routinewashing: $0.00Employer did not providesingle use towels: $0.00Employer did not pay fortransportation cost foremployees to havecholinesterase testingperformed: $0.00Respirators no storedcorrectly: $0.00No training on MSDSslocation and how to usethe MSDS: $0.00No medical evaluationfor respirator users:$0.00Improper transfer ofpesticides from onecontainer to another$0.00No annual fit test: $0.00Total AssessedPenaltiesPlannedCrop plantingandcultivatingAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report163City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusiness$0.00ToppenishYakima County311897094Yuma 4EMicronizedWettable Sulfur35Mixing,loading,applying5/20/20086/4/2008General Citation:No emergency eyewash:$0.00No decontaminationarea: $0.00No area for employeesto wash thoroughly afterspraying or during anemergency: $0.00Pesticide records werenot readily accessible tothe employees: $0.00No written respiratoryprogram: $0.00No training orinformation as requiredby HazardousCommunicationProgram: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsGrandviewYakima County312114424lorsban6Mixing andspraying6/2/20086/2/2008General:No programadministrator for TheRespiratory ProtectionProgram: $0.00Employer did not ensurerespirators weremaintained in a cleanPlannedGrapes/GrapeVineyardAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report164City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusinessand reliable condition:$0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00St JohnWhitman County312565815Diacon-D6Placingpesticide10/22/200810/22/2008General:No MSDS: $0.00No documentation ofsafety meetings: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedLivestock(non-ag)QuincyGrant County312159296Round-up1Applyingpesticides6/18/20086/18/2008General:No written Haz Comprogram: $0.00MSDSs were not readilyaccessible: $0.00No written respiratoryprogram: $0.00No record keeping forrespirator users:$0.00No medical evaluationfor respirator users:$0.00Respirators were notstored properly: $0.00Total AssessedPenaltiesPlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsAppendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report165Appendix C I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report166City, CountyInspection #regionPesticidesInvolved#ofEmployeesHow exposedOtheragenciesinvolvedIncidentdateCompliantdateInspectiondate(opened)(closed)Citations/costsType ofinspectionType ofBusiness$0.00QunicyGrant Count311850309GuthionSevinGramoxone34/8/20084/8/2008General:No written Haz Comprogram: $0.00No written respiratoryprogram: $0.00Respirators where notstored correctly: $0.00Haz Com training: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchardsOthelloAdams County31211243655/29/20085/29/2008General:No eyewash: $0.00No APP: $0.00Total AssessedPenalties$0.00PlannedDeciduoustree fruitorchards

# A PPENDIX 

# D

License Types and Enforcement Definitions

Department of Agriculture, Pesticide License Types Department of Agriculture, En forcement 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 pestic ide. Refer to other types for appropriate license.

Appendix D I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 169Appendix D I Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking I 2009 Annual Report 170 

## 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 mu st be corrected. Usually given thirty days. If corrected, no further action. If not corrected, further action is taken.

Notice of Intent/Administrative action Legal case Usually results in a fine and/or license suspension for a varying interval.

Referred Sent to another agency for action. The violation is not in WSDA jurisdiction.

Stop sale Further sale of the product is prohibited until violation corrected. Generally an unregistered or damaged product.

# A PPENDIX 

# E

Department of Ecology Maps

Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008 Active Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008 Pesticide Contaminated Sites Through 2008

# ! ( ! (

# 0 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

Klickitat Clark Skamania Cowlitz Wahkiakum

Asotin Walla Walla Columbia

Benton Garfield Franklin 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 ! ( ! (

! ( Klickitat Clark Skamania Cowlitz Wahkiakum

Asotin Walla Walla Columbia

Benton Garfield Franklin 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