North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 16, No. 1, January 1998
Law
Commercial Certified People
in All Categories Need to Have Financial Responsibility
Aerial Cease and Desist
SARA III Update
Quick and Easy Look at the Law
NDDA Enforcement '97
NDDA Spray Complaints '97
NDDA Non Ag Spray Complaints '97
EPA and Court Takes Actions in Illegal
Illinois Pesticide Sales and Misuse
Pesticide Blamed in Death of Twin Cities
Artist
In This Issue
Coordinator Comments
Pesticide Perceptions
IPM
Pest Control
Storage and Handling
Safety
Education
Pesticide Training
Beginning, January 1, 1998, all commercial applicators will need to provide proof of financial responsibility in the amount of $100,000 in order to become or continue to be certified.
Minimum financial responsibility must be demonstrated annually in the amount of $100,000 and may be demonstrated by a notarized letter from an officer of a financial institution or from a certified public accountant attesting to the existence of net assets equal to at least $100,000, a performance bond, or a general liability insurance policy.
EXEMPTION: The FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WAIVER inside the back cover clearly states the only exemptions. If you qualify for one of the exemptions listed, please fill out the form and return to this office. When properly completed, your certification will continue or be reissued when you recertify.
If you do not qualify for the waiver and/or you do not file a financial responsibility letter, bond or certificate of insurance in the amount of $100,000, you will not be certified. On April 1 you will receive a letter from the North Dakota Department of Agriculture notifying you that your certification has been revoked. They will request your certification card by return mail.
Two very ominous words, together they make the blood run cold. Webster's new world dictionary reads: Cease vt, to end; stop Desist vi, to cease; stop.
This is the new section of Chapter 2-05 of the North Dakota Century Code regarding the powers of the Aeronautics Commission. The Commission may issue and serve upon an aerial applicator an order to cease and desist when the Commission has reason to believe that the applicator is violating the laws, rules or regulations pertaining to doing business as an aerial applicator. Any party may appeal the order and will receive a timely hearing under the law. The Commission also has the power to impose civil money penalties against anyone willfully violating said rules and regulations. These penalties can be in the amount of $500 for each violation. Is the blood running cold enough?
Now, the rest of the story. If you run your application business within the rules of good common North Dakota sense, you will never hear the two dreadful words; cease and desist. If you do not, there still is a very fair methodology of hearings, hearing officers and commission members to rule on your future.
The legislature enacted this law to affect a stronger ability of the Commission to stop those who in one day's activities can destroy the good will and hard work that the aerial applicator industry has developed over the past 45 years. Fear not, those that do it right.
(Submitted by Gary Ness, ND Aeronautics Commission)
The time is approaching again for the annual Tier II report due under SARA Title III (also known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act or EPCRA). It has been some time since requirements under SARA were visited on these pages, so perhaps a review of these requirements is in order. The following information is very brief and general in nature. It is intended only to provide a broad overview of SARA requirements for information and review. If you are unfamiliar with SARA generally, or have questions or require more detailed or specific information, please see the note at the end of this article.
Most of you are probably familiar with the basic SARA Title III requirements: plan for response to spills or releases of your hazardous chemicals, and designate a liaison to establish contact and coordinate with the county local emergency planning committee (LEPC). Report hazardous chemicals present on your facilities in quantity above the threshold planning quantity (TPQ). Notify local, state and federal officials of accidental spills or releases of your hazardous chemicals.
The planning requirement is met by developing a written plan of how you will respond to a release of hazardous chemicals from your facility or during transport and/or application off site. Your liaison must coordinate your response plan with the county response plan through the LEPC. In most cases, the contact point for this is the county emergency manager.
The hazardous chemical report referred to is the annual Tier II report. It is due March 1 and is for the previous calendar year. Chemicals reportable on the Tier II report generally have either a 500 pound TPQ or a 10,000 pound TPQ. If you are unsure of the TPQ of your hazardous chemicals, it is best to contact your supplier for this information. There is a filing fee required with the Tier II report of $25 per substance per facility, with a maximum of $150 per facility. The report is to be filed with the Division of Emergency Management, Box 5511, Bismarck, ND 58506. Copies of the report, without fee, are to go to the LEPC (send to the county emergency manager) and the fire department of jurisdiction for the facility.
Notification of local, state and federal officials is required for accidental releases of hazardous chemicals in amounts greater than the reportable quantity (RQ), which is always given in pounds. The RQ varies according to the substance. It can range from as little as one pound to as much as 10,000 pounds. Not all hazardous chemicals have an RQ assigned to them. If you are unsure if your hazardous chemicals have an RQ or what the RQ is, contact your supplier.
For local notification, call the county emergency manager. For state notification, call 1-800-472-2121 (in state only) or (701) 328-2121 (nationwide). For federal notification, call the National Response Center (NRC) at 1-800-424-8802.
Again, this has been a brief and very general overview of hazardous chemical reporting and planning requirements, and it is written with the assumption that the reader has at least a basic familiarity with SARA and its terminology. If you have any questions at all, or need more information of any sort, please don't hesitate to call Bob Johnston or Ray DeBoer in the Division of Emergency Management at (701) 328-2111.
(Submitted by: Robert W. Johnston, N.D. Office of Emergency Management)
The North Dakota Pesticide Act and corresponding regulations are printed in a green book handed out as part of all commercial certification packets. This booklet can serve as your source of information specific to the application, use, storage, and disposal of pesticides. This article points out some of the most common violations found during department inspections of dealers and applicators of pesticides and the sections of the law that deal specifically with these violations. Please review these requirements in your green books to ensure you are not committing any violations. If you have specific questions, please call the Department of Agriculture at 1-800-242-7535.
Citation |
Violation |
Page Number(s) |
| 4-35-09 | Person not properly certified to perform commercial pesticide applications. | 7 |
| 4-35-12 60-03-01-05 |
Dealer certified in wrong
category. (The most common violation is a dealer selling or applying fumigants while only certified in Ag. Pest). Fumigation of elevator grain is considered a commercial application. |
8 |
| 4-35-15.12 | Dealer selling to uncertified individuals. | 10 |
| 4-35-16 60-03-01-07(2) |
Improper application records. | 11 30 |
| 60-03-01-07(1) | Improper RUP sales records. | 29 |
| 4-35-20 60-03-01-06(4) |
Improper pesticide container disposal. | 12 29 |
| 60-03-01-06(2c) | Improper floor drain in pesticide storage area. | 29 |
(Submitted by: Barry Coleman, Director Pesticide Division, N.D. Dept of Ag.)
The following information was obtained from the North Dakota Department of Agriculture database. These are the inspection and enforcement actions for fiscal year 1997. The pesticide division's fiscal year is from October 1 to September 30. The 1998 fiscal year began on October 1, 1997.
| Total inspections conducted | 635 |
| Ag follow-up (complaints) | 38 |
| Non-Ag follow-up (complaints) | 12 |
| Producer establishment (chemical sales) | 42 |
| Applicator records | 199 |
| Restricted Use Dealer Sales | 162 |
| Private Records | 9 |
| Non agricultural use inspections | 23 |
| Agricultural use inspections | 146 |
| Certification Revocations | 1 |
| Warnings | 108 |
| Violations | 60 |
| Penalties assessed | 34 |
| Certification conditioning (probation) | 2 |
| Experimental use permit inspections | 6 |
| Federal facility | 2 |
| Administrative hearings conducted | 2 |
| Fines collected | $16,990 |
(Submitted by: Gerald Thompson, Asst. Pesticide Director, N.D. Dept. of Ag.)
The following information was obtained from the North Dakota Department of agriculture. These are the complaints investigated and action taken by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture for the 1997 spray season.
| Complaint | Action Taken |
| Off-label application of Broadstrike onto navy beans | 18,000 |
| Roundup drift into farmstead (PRIVATE) (GROUND) | $180 plea |
| Gramoxone Extra drift onto organic fallow field (air) | $400 plea |
| Gramoxone Fxtra drift onto
farmstead (REPEAT) (AIR) |
$1,150 plea two year revocation |
| Roundup drift onto trees (AIR) | no violation |
| Roundup - 2,4-D drift onto farmstead (AIR) | $400 plea |
| Gramoxone drift onto farmstead – potential human injury (AIR) | $775 plea |
| Drift onto farmstead trees & ornamentals (AIR) | no violation |
| Bees are dying near hives | no violation |
| Cobra - Pursuit drift onto farmstead (AIR) | pending |
| 2,4-D drift onto sunflowers (AIR) | $625 plea |
| Drift onto sunflowers (AIR) | pending |
| 2,4-D drift onto sunflowers (AIR) | no violation |
| Cross-contaminated spray application onto potatoes (AIR) | $500 plea |
| Failure to post field before Parathion application; no buffer strip (AIR) | $500 plea |
| Drift onto sunflower field (AIR) | no violation |
| Pesticide damage in farmstead – several applications (AIR & GROUND) | no violation |
| 2,4-D drift onto alfalfa (AIR) | $200 plea |
| 2,4-D drift onto garden (GROUND) | $200 plea |
| Flying too low over house & trees – alleged drift into river (AIR) | no violation |
| 2,4-D -Tordon drift onto sunflowers (AIR) | pending |
| Aerial applicator dumped load into slough (AIR) | $2,775 plea, two year revocation of certification |
| Drift onto famstead (PRIVATE) (GROUND) | $180 plea |
| Roundup drift onto barley durum fields (GROUND) | $400 plea |
| Applicator making & applying tiller | pending |
| Drift onto sugar beets (GROUND) | $400 plea |
| 2,4-D drift onto farmstead (PRIVATE) (GROUND) | $180 plea |
| Aerial & ground applicators spraying in windy conditions | no violation |
| Roundup drift onto hayland – driveway (AIR & GROUND) | $200 plea |
| Applicator loaded in alfalfa field – intentional spraying the wrong land (GROUND) | $625 plea |
| Drift onto alfalfa (GROUND) | $200 plea |
| Applicator spraying too close to town causing cancer (GROUND) | no violation |
| Tiller drift onto farmstead (PRIVATE) (GROUND) | $180 plea |
| Aerial applicators have flown over yard damage to garden (AIR) | no violation |
| Neighbor spilled chemical – did not clean up spill | warning letter |
| 2,4-D drift on sunflowers (AIR) | no violation, complaint filed too late |
| Insecticide drifted onto worker (AIR) | $3,175 plea, certification revocation pending |
| Complaints | Action Taken |
| Concerned about health when spray planes flying too low | no violation |
| Miss application of grain fumigant | no violation |
| Right of way crew damaged potatoes (GROUND) | pending |
| Right of way sprayers killed trees (GROUND) | no violation, complaint filed too late |
| Farmer making ROW application drifted onto soybeans (GROUND) | pending |
| Aerial sprayer applying to right of way – not certified (AIR) | $1,575 Plea |
| Neighbor spraying – damaging trees – dumping oil on ground (GROUND) | no violation |
| Drift onto garden (GROUND) | no violation |
| Lawn & tree applicator – Applied fertilizer to trees – trees are dead | pending |
| County weed officer – dumping rinsate – no records kept | no violation |
| Off label pesticide use in bee hive | $1,000 plea |
(Submitted by: Gerald Thompson, ND Dept of Agriculture)
On November 19, James Allen of Chicago, Ill. Was charged in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in Jackson with the illegal purchase and transport of pesticides in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Allen allegedly conspired with other individuals between 1993 and early 1997 to purchase the pesticide methyl parathion for the purpose of illegally applying it in residences. Methyl parathion is a highly toxic pesticide which is approved for use only in open uninhabited fields. The charges state that Allen obtained 485 gallons of the pesticide illegally and transported it to Reuben Brown, an exterminator in Chicago, who sprayed it in approximately 1,000 homes. Allen is also accused of spraying a Braxton, Miss. Residence with methyl parathion. If convicted Allen faces a maximum sentence of two years in prison, a fine of up to $200,000 or both.
(Source: EPA HQ news release, 12/5/97, EPA web site)
On December 9, Ruben Brown, an unlicenced pesticide applicator from Bellwood, Ill., who plead guilty to the illegal application of an outdoor pesticide commonly known as "cotton poison" inside homes in the Chicago area, was sentenced to serve two years in federal prison by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Brown previously admitted to applying the pesticide methyl parathion inside two homes in the Chicago area in June and July of 1996. Both cases were investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division and the FBI with assistance of EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center.
(Source: EPA HQ news release, 12/12/97, EPA web site)
The city Fire Department has stopped requiring permits to use restricted pesticides, including one of the most deadly, blamed in the death of artist Santos Fernandez last summer.
Earlier this month, the Hennepin County medical examiner's office determined that Fernandez, 54 died of methyl bromide poisoning.
Methyl bromide is the most lethal pesticide used in the United States. In Minnesota, the chemical may be applied only by state-licensed applicators.
But city officials have been unaware for months about which pesticides are being used and where they are being applied, said Fire Chief Tom Dickinson.
Dickinson said officials in his department stopped requiring applicators to seek permits to use restricted pesticides years ago.
"I assumed it was being done," he said. "But it wasn't."
Now, three police officers who investigated the artist's death have reported that they have symptoms believed to be related to methyl bromide exposure, WCCO-TV and the Star Tribune reported.
Thousands of pound of the deadly but short-lasting fumigant are used yearly in a nearby soybean mill. Fernandez died when the chemical traveled through underground conduits down the block to his building in the warehouse district in downtown Minneapolis, the medical examiner said.
Methyl bromide is widely used to control insects and rodents in food processing and warehouses.
In large doses, methyl bromide kills its victims immediately without warning. In smaller concentrations, it can produce several ailments in humans, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, nervous tics, respiratory illness, and liver, heart and kidney problems.
In Minnesota Archer Daniels Midland used 22,900 pounds of the chemical in 1995 in the mill near the warehouse where Fernandez died.
(Source: Fargo Forum)
[ In This Issue /
Coordinator Comments ]
[ Pesticide Perceptions ]
[ IPM / Pest Control ]
[ Storage and Handling / Safety ]
[ Education / Pesticide Training ]
Volume 16, No. 1 -- January 1998
NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University of
Agriculture and Applied Science, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture cooperating. Sharon D. Anderson, Director, Fargo,
North Dakota. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress
of May 8 and June 30, 1914. We offer our programs and facilities
to all persons regardless of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam era veterans status, or
sexual orientation; and are an equal opportunity employer.
This publication will be made available in alternative format for
persons with disabilities upon request 701/231-7881.
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service