North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 18, No. 4, October 2000
In August two very serious fumigation incidents occurred in the Dakotas. One was outrageous and a near tragedy and the other was simply sad and was a tragedy. Both incidents underscore the need to respect the hazards of the pesticides we use and redouble our efforts to read and follow the directions on the labels.
The first incident is described in the article "Fumigators should be trained and certified." Basically, a family home in Cavalier County had become infested with bees. The owner of the bees was contacted. The beekeeper suggested fumigating the attic (where the bees were). The homeowner, trusting the advice and experience of the beekeeper, readily agreed.
A fumigant was distributed, and the family was told to stay out of the house for a couple of days. The homeowner returned to the house, looked in the window and saw that the pet fish were dead. Calls to the poison control center, NDSU, the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, and experts from Dupont's industrial chemicals division soon unraveled a case of illegal (unregistered) and improper use of hydrogen cyanide. (The very same pesticide called Zyklon-B that was used to kill 1.3 million Jews at Auschwitz!)
In addition to the illegal use, the investigation turned up a laundry list of casual disregard for the safety of not only the family but the applicator as well. Thankfully, no one but the fish gave their lives. However, the family is still fearful of letting the children enter the house much less live there no matter how much decontamination is done.
The second incident is outlined in the article "Tests confirm toxic pesticide fumes in Salem home." Essentially, a father, doing his best to maintain his yard and protect his family from burrowing rodents, inadvertently made his family ill and killed his five year old daughter with Fumitoxin fumigant. That's right, he killed his own daughter! Was carelessness involved in this? Maybe. Was negligence involved in this? Perhaps. He was a certified applicator; was his training inadequate and/or was the testing too easy? Did the dealer give him the product manual? Did he read the product manual? All of these are serious questions, and they only scratch the surface of this case.
But the fact remains: a child is dead and a father and a family will have to deal with this grief for the rest of their lives all because the rules that we should live by were either ignored or, at best, misunderstood.
Unfortunately, pesticide labels are written by lawyers and scientists with advanced degrees, so even the most well educated person has difficulty comprehending the label.
This past week, this became acutely clear when the weed science faculty here at NDSU spent an entire day reviewing the 2001 Weed Control Guide. Collectively you had almost 200 years of education sitting around the table and even this group had a difficult time wading through the minutia and arcane language of several pesticide labels.
With that as the context, consider the trials of Harriet (see the article, "The hazards of Harriet: hapless homeowner heeds hunches"). This true story is comical in that no one was really hurt, but what if we juxtapose her case with the poor grieving father in Salem, South Dakota?
Regards,
Andrew A. Thostenson
Coordinators note: The 1999 Legislature appointed a study committee to examine pesticide harmonization and pesticide liability issues. What follows are the official minutes from the committee's September 28, 2000 meeting as it pertains to the financial responsibility law.
At the request of Chairman Nicholas, committee counsel reviewed a background memorandum entitled Chemical Application Industry — Background Memorandum.
Chairman Nicholas called on Mr. Andrew A. Thostenson, Pesticide Program Specialist, North Dakota State University, for comments regarding the North Dakota financial responsibility law for pesticide applicators. Mr. Thostenson presented written materials, copies of which are on file in the Legislative Council office. He said the Extension Service trains and certifies applicators to apply restricted-use pesticides. In 1997, he said, the Legislative Assembly enacted financial responsibility requirements which have proven to be difficult to administer. He said the requirement of a general liability insurance policy does not address misapplication of a pesticide. Another problem with the law, he said, is that only certified applicators are required to provide financial responsibility. Because certification is granted for a three-year period and proof of financial responsibility must be provided yearly, he said, there is much difficulty in administering the program.
Mr. Thostenson said the Agriculture Commissioner's office is responsible for enforcement of the financial responsibility requirements. However, he said, because of the difficulty in administering the applicator certification process, the requirements are essentially unenforceable. He said it appears three courses of action are available:
Mr. Thostenson said the existing law could be improved by requiring an affidavit of proof of financial responsibility rather than the actual filing of proof of responsibility. He said the affidavit would be similar to the affidavit required to obtain a driver's license. In addition, he said, it would be helpful if the affidavit of proof be filed only at the time of certification rather than annually. He said meaningful enforcement provisions would also improve the existing law.
In response to a question from Representative Brandenburg, Mr. Thostenson said although insurance is available, the cost of the insurance may be an issue. He said the current law requires an enormous amount of staff time and resources for little effect.
In response to a question from Citizen Member Oemichen, Mr. Thostenson said the financial responsibility law has had little influence on payments or settlements with respect to losses for misapplication. He said 30 to 40 lawsuits are filed annually, but very few end up in court.
In response to a question from Senator Wanzek, Mr. Thostenson said although the financial responsibility requirements were intended to prevent "fly-by-night" operators from applying pesticides, the requirements have not worked because of the lack of licensing standards. He said fly-by-night operators will not comply with the financial responsibility requirements regardless of the law requiring financial responsibility.
Chairman Nicholas called on Mr. Jeff Olson, Department of Agriculture, for comments regarding the pesticide applicator study. Mr. Olson said the Agriculture Commissioner is responsible for enforcing the financial responsibility law. However, he said, because of the cost of holding an administrative hearing and the large number of applicators who do not submit financial responsibility proof, the law is extremely difficult to enforce. He said over 700 applicators did not show proof of financial responsibility this last year. He said representatives of the Agriculture Commissioner continue to work with Mr. Thostenson in attempting to find ways to make the law work. However, he said, they have been unable to find a way to enforce the law.
In response to a question from Citizen Member Oemichen, Mr. Olson said the Agriculture Commissioner receives approximately 60 to 70 complaints each year with respect to pesticide applicators. He said about 40 of the complaints usually are related to pesticide drift. In most cases, he said, the parties are able to resolve the problem. Although the law needs more teeth, he said, he does not want to see state government involved in litigation between two private parties.
In response to a question from Citizen Member Oemichen, Mr. Thostenson said misapplication insurance riders generally cost 10 times the amount of general liability policies.
In response to a question from Senator Wanzek, Mr. Thostenson said there is some evidence that applicators that have insurance may be bothered with nuisance lawsuits.
In response to a question from Citizen Member Oemichen, Mr. Thostenson said the certification process is a large paperwork burden on the Extension Service. He said it costs approximately $20,000 per year to administer the program, and there are no tangible benefits.
Mr. Gerald Thompson, Department of Agriculture, said approximately 10 percent of the applicators did not carry insurance before the 1997 legislation, and the number likely has not changed. He said the 1997 legislation originated from the aerial applicators who proposed provisions requiring drift liability. Ultimately, he said, the legislation ended up being passed as requiring general liability insurance, bonds, or proof of assets. He said the general liability policy does not help a producer that is damaged as a result of misapplication. He said there are likely more drift incidences of damage than the number that are reported.
Senator Wanzek said the financial responsibility requirements may give producers a false sense of security. Mr. Thompson said he agrees there may be a misconception among producers regarding the effect of the financial responsibility law.
Senator Wanzek said because the law does not work, the financial responsibility requirements probably should be repealed. He said there appears to be a significant problem with the cost of misapplication or drift insurance, and there are significant differences and needs in the various areas of the state.
Senator Kinnoin said it is clear that the current law is not workable. However, he said, there will always be individuals who will cause problems regardless of the status of the law.
Mr. Gary Ness, State Aeronautics Commissioner, said the Aeronautics Commission licenses 200 individuals. He said he agrees that something needs to be done to address the financial responsibility law.
It was moved by Senator Wanzek, seconded by Senator Kinnoin, and carried on a roll call vote that the interested parties be encouraged to assist the Legislative Assembly in pursuing solutions to address the drift and misapplication concerns and that serious consideration be given to recommending repeal of the existing law. Representatives Nicholas and Brandenburg, Senators Kinnoin and Wanzek, and Citizen Member Oemichen voted "aye." No negative votes were cast.
Randy Hascall, Sioux Falls Argus Leader
Salem, South Dakota, August 30, 2000—Tests have confirmed that the home of a 5-year-old Salem girl who died Saturday was contaminated with pesticide.
A North Carolina chemical company on Tuesday found traces of toxic phosphine gas in the home of Don and Mary Carlson. The Carlson's and their three daughters had gotten ill, and officials suspected they accidentally had been poisoned by a pesticide.
The youngest girl, Bridget, was pronounced dead at Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls. Her sisters, Rachel and Renee, are patients at the hospital. Officials there said Tuesday that they can't disclose their conditions because the girls are minors. They were in serious condition Monday night.
Pesticon Systems, a pesticide manufacturer, sent representatives to the Carlson home Tuesday morning. Levels of the toxic gas are so low now that the evacuated home should be safe for occupancy today, McCook County Civil Defense Director Brad Stiefvater said.
"Readings were barely on the meter," Stiefvater said. "This stuff dissipates and is gone, unlike some chemicals that have residual matter to worry about."
Officials used fans to clear air out of the house, and Stiefvater said he's confident it will be safe today.
The company left some instruments so Stiefvater can test the house again. "It's a tragedy, and we hope we don't see anything like it again," he said.
Officials believe the family was poisoned by gas from Fumitoxin pellets that Don Carlson placed in the ground near the home to control pests. That gas probably seeped into the basement and was distributed throughout the home by an air conditioner, they said.
Carlson is certified to apply such chemicals, according to Jim Wilson, extension pesticide educator at South Dakota State University. The Cooperative Extension Service provides training for certification.
Fumitoxin is used primarily to kill bugs in grain bins but also is used to gas ground squirrels, pocket gophers and other pests, officials say. It's activated after it comes into contact with air.
Stiefvater doesn't know what type of pest Carlson used it for.
The basement foundation of the Carlson's' house is made of wood, not concrete, but Stiefvater said he doesn't think that was a factor in the gas seeping into the home.
Reach reporter Randy Hascall at rhascall@argusleader.com or (605) or 331-2320
BISMARCK -- August 21, 2000 -- "Only properly trained and certified fumigators should be employed to rid homes and other buildings of insects and other pests," say state agriculture officials.
The North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) and other agencies are now investigating an incident near Dresden, North Dakota in which a house was fumigated with the deadly poison, hydrogen cyanide. The residents of the house are presently living in nearby Langdon while their home is tested for traces of the poison.
Jeff Olson, manager of NDDA's Plant Services Division, said the house was allegedly fumigated by a beekeeper. Hydrogen cyanide is used to fumigate bee colonies in Canada, but the chemical is not registered as a fumigant in the United States. The matter has been referred to the Cavalier County state's attorney for criminal prosecution. For more information, please call Jeff Olson at (701) 328-4756 or e-mail at jmolson@state.nd.us
Dr. Catherine Daniels, Pesticide Coordinator, Washington State University
Coordinator's Note: This splendid story is true and I simply could not resist sharing it with you. It is from the October 2000 issue of Agrichemical and Environmental News
On July 11, 2000, I returned to my office at Washington State University's Pesticide Information Center (PIC) after attending an all-day meeting. There I found, waiting for me on my voice mail, a slightly hysterical message from . . . let's call her "Harriet." And let's say she lived in Franklin County. (As I progress through this story you will understand why I have changed the name and county residence of the caller.)
In a word, Harriet was harried. Her message said that she had used Dursban on her vegetable garden and was now worried that she would be poisoned by the application. She begged me to return her call.
While it is not unusual for PIC to receive calls from concerned citizens, the tone of this call was certainly more disturbed than we normally hear. Not wanting to be responsible for a lost night's sleep, I called Harriet back. Mindful of the recent news coverage of Dursban use cancellations, I gathered all of the EPA press releases and other related information needed to assuage her worries. I assembled this tidy media kit on my desk while dialing her number.
However, the conversation took a turn I did not anticipate. Harriet told me she had bugs...lots of bugs. Harriet had bugs "all over her tomatoes." The diazinon she had previously applied was clearly not working, so she had gone to the local feed and supply store to purchase malathion, which she was sure would kill them. The store clerk told Harriet she really wanted Dursban, not malathion, and handed her a bottle of Lilly/Miller Dursban Insect Control. Thus armed, Harriet returned home and read the directions carefully (more on that in a moment), then sprayed her tomatoes. She was caring for her neighbor's garden while he was away, and as his garden also had bugs, she acted as she thought a good neighbor should, and sprayed his garden as well.
The use directions for lawns told Harriet the lawn should be damp before application.
Proceeding with a certain type of logic, she deduced that the vegetables should also be damp and accordingly turned the sprinkler on while she was spraying the garden. Harriet told me she had been very thorough in soaking the plants with the Dursban solution. To make sure the garden was good and wet she left the sprinkler on for two hours after the application. When the bugs were not dead the next morning she determined she should spray again. But she was worried that she had misunderstood the use directions for damp lawns so she called the retailer back and asked for clarification on the label directions. They informed her that vegetables were not on the product label. They helpfully provided the Lilly/Miller telephone number, which is no longer in service. (As many of our readers know, the company has been sold.) In desperation, our Harriet called her county extension office, which in turn referred her to me.
While Harriet, in a high state of excitement, waited for me to return her call, she "called Oregon." At this point in the conversation Harriet was verging on hyperventilation and couldn't identify to whom in Oregon she had spoken. I assume it was either the EXTOXNET (Extension Toxicology Network) or NPTN (National Pesticide Telecommunications Network) folks, whom many offices regularly use as referrals. She was told chlorpyrifos (Dursban) was registered on a large number of crops, but that they could not give her the list of all crops to compare with those she had sprayed in the neighbor's garden. The garden included tomatoes, cucumbers, cantaloupe, squash, coriander and other herbs, fresh corn, bell peppers, onions, and broccoli. The tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, and cantaloupe plants had fruit present.
I pulled a copy of the label from our files to review. The Dursban product she had purchased (a 6.7% emulsifiable concentrate, or EC) listed turf, ornamentals, lawn, non-bearing peach, non-bearing nectarine, and home outdoors (patio, foundation, etc.) on the label. At the very bottom of the label was the following statement: "Do not spray vegetable gardens or other plants used for food purposes, except as specifically directed." Harriet read this statement to me and in a very aggrieved tone told me that since the label didn't give any direction on how to use the product on vegetables, she had used the rate for control of spittlebugs on ornamentals, which was 4 teaspoons per gallon. As she had bugs around her house she used the leftover spray as a foundation application around the house and patio. She was now concerned that her litter of kittens, who played in this area, might be poisoned as well. I might note here that the label directs the user to make a solution of one cup of product per gallon for patio applications.
Confronted with such a plateful of problems, I literally didn't know where to begin to correct her behavior, nor did I have any confidence that in her hysterical condition she would remember much of what I said. My discussion of label legalities fell on deaf ears. She simply wanted to know, person to person, if there were any way she and her neighbor could consume food from their respective gardens. Faced with this question, I simply explained to her that the vegetables could not be eaten under any circumstances, that she MUST tell her neighbor what had happened, and that in the future she should avail herself of the Master Gardener program in her county before ever spraying again.
Thus finished with Harriet's immediate crises, I remained interested in determining, even roughly, what Harriet's application equated to in terms of possible residues. I asked Dr. Allan Felsot, as an academic exercise, to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the potential maximum residue left after Harriet's application. Some broad assumptions were made:
Using these assumptions and the application rates related by Harriet, theoretically she could have deposited as much as 34.9 ppm of chlorpyrifos on every 100-gram helping of tomato, squash, bell pepper, onion, and whatnot she harvested. That seemed unreal, even for an academic exercise. So we backed off to a more realistic estimate of 1 ml of solution. The theoretical residue would then be 3.49 ppm. Federal tolerances are listed in Table 1. Squash, cantaloupe, and herbs have no listed tolerances.
Table 1. Tolerances for crops commonly grown in home gardens.
--------------------------------------------------- Crop Tolerances in ppm --------------------------------------------------- Broccoli 1.0 (chlorpyrifos) Snap bean 0.05 (chlorpyrifos and metabolite) Cucumber 0.05 (chlorpyrifos) Radish 2.0 (chlorpyrifos) Fresh corn 0.1 (chlorpyrifos and metabolite) Dry bulb onion 0.5 (chlorpyrifos and metabolite) Peppers 1.0 (chlorpyrifos and metabolite) Tomatoes 0.5 (chlorpyrifos and metabolite) --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
In an epilogue to this saga, on July 18, Norman, the neighbor whose garden
had been sprayed, called me. He said Harriet had relayed all of the
information to him, but he needed to hear it himself.
I explained the situation to him as I had explained it to Harriet. Hoping to
help avert a neighborhood war, I then told him if it was any consolation Harriet had
been hysterically upset over the outcome. Norman the Neighbor agreed that
was the case and said he would take his garden out, then wailed "But why me?
I just don't understand! I was only gone two days and look what happened!"
If I had been trying to write a script of a typical homeowner pesticide application scene, I wouldn't have included everything Harriet actually did because it would seem like satire at that point. I'd be accused of "going over the top"—making it a comedy of errors to draw a laugh. But the sad thing is that this is a true story with no embellishments, and in fact, only one of many we have heard at PIC. After sitting in this desk for ten years, I have developed a firm belief there are millions of Harriets applying their certain brand of logic to pesticide applications around the country.
Like the children's exercise of "How many wrong things can you find in this picture?" let's review what Harriet did wrong in this story.
Dr. Catherine H. Daniels is Washington State University's Pesticide Coordinator. Her office is in the Pesticide Information Center on the Tri-Cities campus. She can be reached at cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu or (509) 372-7495.
By Gerald Thompson, North Dakota Department of Agriculture
The North Dakota Department of Agriculture would appreciate complainants filing crop and vegetation complaints with the NDDA within 30 days of the date of the pesticide misapplication that is alleged to have caused the damage.
This request comes about as a result of the NDDA's need to gather evidence of drift damage in sufficient time to prove that the pesticide application that is being complained about caused the damage. Evidence may include laboratory results for vegetation samples, records, labels, complainant and applicator statements, maps, weather records, and other information. Several of the new chemistries reach their half-life in just a few days, so the Department needs to be at the site as quickly as possible. Past delays of months to years on such complaints resulted in the NDDA expending significant resources on investigations without hope of the complaint being proven.
Existing policy states that all complaints must be handled through the Bismarck office. Complaints are taken by pesticide staff from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Complaints can be filed by calling 1-800-242-7535 and asking for some one from the Pesticide Division. A complaint form will be completed during the telephone call.
The NDDA investigates 40-60 pesticide misuse complaints from April through October each year. A large percentage of these complaints are for crop and vegetation damage and many are odor related. The single largest reason for damage is the spraying of herbicides in excessive or incorrect winds that cause drift onto susceptible crops and vegetation.
About 65% of the time, an investigation occurs and some level of enforcement action is taken, including the issuance of nonfinancial actions and financial penalties as determined by the NDDA's Enforcement Unit. The remainder of the time, investigations are closed due to lack of evidence.
Complainants should be aware that once involved, the NDDA will continue its investigation until the investigation is closed due to lack of evidence, a nonfinancial penalty action is taken, or a referral to the NDDA`s Enforcement Unit for further review occurs. An investigation will not stop due to parties agreeing to a financial settlement after the NDDA is contacted.
Complainants should also be aware that the NDDA does not become involved in financial settlements and does not issue yield loss estimates. In addition, it does not act in the capacity of a crop consultant or other similar activity. The NDDA's sole investigation activity is to determine if violations of state or federal law occurred.
Items which complicate investigations include drift of non labeled pesticides onto crops/forage for which no tolerance exists under the FIFRA/Federal Food Quality Protection Act, non certified/ unlicensed applicators `of restricted use pesticides, and damage caused by the complainant on his/her own crops/ vegetation.
Investigations generally require a minimum of 90 days for completion. Some can last for a year or more before the case is completed
For more information, contact Gerald Thompson or Pat O'Neil at 1-800 242-7535 or e-mail gthompso@state.nd.us
Drs. Eric Miltner and Gwen Stahnke, Turf Scientists, WSU
Coordinator's Comments: This is from the October 2000 issue of Agrichemical and Environmental News. A more detailed analysis of these incidents can be found at: www2.tricity.wsu.edu/aenews/Oct00AENews/Oct00AENews.htm
Two recent incidents of herbicide-contaminated compost in eastern Washington have drawn a great deal of attention. In brief, separate and unrelated problems occurred at compost facilities in the Spokane area and at Washington State University (WSU) in Pullman. The Spokane compost was intended for home and garden use while the Pullman compost was intended for agricultural use, but the cases had similarities.
In both cases, compost users noticed damaged plants with herbicide-like injury. In the Spokane case, the problem was traced to the presence of clopyralid in finished compost. Clopyralid is one of the two active ingredients in "Confront," a post-emergent broadleaf herbicide sometimes applied to turfgrass. This compost facility uses grass clippings as one of its source materials. When similar plant injury was subsequently traced to compost from the WSU facility, clopyralid was at first suspected, but was not detected. Picloram was found, however, and was traced back to pasture applications of Tordon. It is generally assumed that the composting process degrades pesticides. This is usually correct, but in these cases the damaging compounds were not degraded, or at least not enough.
Persistence of clopyralid in the compost should come as no surprise. Previous research has shown that clopyralid does not break down in the composting process. (Triclopyr, the other active ingredient, does break down). As a result, the Confront label specifies "do not use compost containing grass clippings from turf treated with Confront in the growing season of application." Although the label warns of the hazard, the composting facility did not know that the source material contained clopyralid.
The lesson to be learned from this incident is that clear communication between pesticide applicators, clients, and other affected parties is critical. Testing and/or bio-assaying of compost by composting facilities should also be considered. We do not attempt to define what each participant's legal obligation is in this process, only to point out what makes good common sense: whoever applies the pesticide should read the label; whoever owns the property should be aware of the restrictions; whoever cuts and disposes of the grass should be aware of the restrictions. This would be the only way to prevent the clippings from ending up in the wrong place. An incident such as this is a good argument for returning grass clippings to the lawn (also known as mulching or grass-cycling), a practice we recommend anyway. Grass clippings are a significant source of nutrients and can reduce the need for supplemental fertilization.
Dr. Eric Miltner is a Turfgrass Research Agronomist and Dr. Gwen Stahnke is a Turfgrass Extension Specialist. Their offices are at the WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center. Dr. Miltner can be reached at miltner@wsu.edu and Dr. Stahnke at stahnke@wsu.edu or (253) 445-4513.
October, 13, 2000 -- EPA and the manufacturer, Cheminova, have signed an agreement to cancel all remaining uses of the organophosphate pesticide ethyl parathion. It is one of the most acutely toxic pesticides still registered for use in the United States. Ethyl parathion is also one of the most highly restricted pesticides on the market today according to the agency's revised risk assessments.
The agreement builds on an earlier one reached in 1991 between EPA and the registrants which limited ethyl parathion use to nine crop sites and added restrictions to the application and post-application work practices to reduce acute toxicity risks. Despite the restrictions, EPA's revised risk assessments for ethyl parathion released earlier this year indicate that high risks may remain for workers and wildlife. However, ethyl parathion residues in food crops grown in the United States and drinking water do not pose significant dietary risk concerns.
The pesticide has no residential uses, though some exposure may result from spray drift. The new agreement immediately stops the use of ethyl parathion on corn grown for seed, which poses the greatest potential risk to workers who re-enter treated fields. It phases out use on other agricultural crops (alfalfa, barley, corn, cotton, canola, sorghum, soybean, sunflower, and wheat) over the next three years, ending all use of ethyl parathion in the United States by Oct. 31, 2003.
The agreement also halts the import of technical grade ethyl parathion into the United States and cancels registrations of ethyl parathion used to manufacture other end-use pesticide products. The registrations of the end-use products will be canceled effective December 31, 2000.
Jim Grey, Pesticide Registration Specialist for the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, reports that the following pesticides have been approved for use this past crop year. (See tables 1 and 2 below.)
Table 1. Section 18 exemptions requested by NDDA in 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Product Crop Type Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
CheckMite+ beehives Specific Approved
Curtail M flax Specific Approved
Eminent sugarbeets Specific Approved
Folicur sunflowers Specific Approved
Folicur wheat/barley Specific Approved
Gramoxone Extra seed peas Crisis Approved
Helix canola Specific Approved
Liberty Liberty-link canola Specific Withdrawn
(§3 approved)
LSP lentils Specific Approved
Muster seed canola Specific Approved
Muster canola Specific Approved
Plateau range/pasture Specific Approved
Purogene potatoes Specific Approved
Raptor dry beans Specific Approved
Raptor IMI-canola Specific Approved
Reflex dry beans Specific Approved
Ronalin canola Specific Withdrawn
(§3 approved)
Roundup Ultra flax Specific Approved
Roundup Ultra flax Specific Approved
Sonalan canola Specific Approved
Spartan sunflower Specific Approved
Stinger canola Specific Approved
Tilt dry beans Specific Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. Section 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations issued in 2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Product Crop Target Pest(s) Issue Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonalan 10G crambe kochia 20-Mar-00
Sonalan HFP crambe kochia 20-Mar-00
Bravo WeatherStick Zn potatoes various fungi 20-Mar-00
Stinger crambe Canada thistle 48-Apr-00
Discover* spring wheat grassy weeds 08-Jun-00
Dimilin 2L rangeland, grasshoppers 09-Jun-00
non-crop
Tough mint pigweed, 23-Jun-00
lambsquarters
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
*Shortened replanting intervals from Section 3 label.
The sheer number of registrations demonstrates the commitment the industry,
the legislature, the Department of Agriculture, and the North Dakota State
University Extension Service and Experiment Station have made towards securing effective
and legal products for North Dakota agriculture.
With the wet weather in the eastern part of North Dakota this year, the North Dakota Department of Agriculture has heard numerous reports of chemical dealers selling individual packets of Tempo® 20WP Insecticide in Packets (EPA Reg. No. 3125-377) to homeowners for mosquito control. The small 9.5-gram packets are an attractive product container size for homeowners and contain an appropriate amount of product for individual use.
However, dealers are reminded that the packets are clearly marked
with wording prohibiting their individual sale, and selling packets on an individual
basis is an illegal act. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture will be
inspecting dealerships for this violation and levying fines where violations are
found. Dealers with questions are encouraged
to contact Jim Gray, Product Registration Specialist with the North Dakota
Department of Agriculture. Telephone: (701) 328-4567 or e-mail: JGray@state.nd.us
DATE CATEGORY CERTIFICATION PLACE TIME
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE CATEGORY CERTIFICATION PLACE TIME
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 28 & 29 Ground, Air, Recertification Fargo, Northern 8:00 a.m. registration
AgPest, Ag Expo, Fargo 8:30 to 12:00 pm training
Research & Dome (must attend both days to
Demo, Right complete training)
of Way, Seed
Treat Commercial Only
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 19 Fumigation Initial & Minot, NDSU 8:00 a.m. registration
Recertification North Central 8:30 to 12:00 pm training
Private & R & E Center 1:00 to 5:00 pm test
Commercial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 20 Fumigation Initial & West Fargo, 8:00 a.m. registration
Recertification Speedway 8:30 to 12:00 pm training
Private & Restaurant 1:00 to 5:00 pm test
Commercial Event Center
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 16 Ground, Recertification Fargo, 8:00 a.m. registration
Ornamental & Doublewood Inn 8:30 to 4:00 pm training
Turf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 30 Fumigation Initial & Mandan, Seven 8:00 a.m. registration
Recertification Seas Hotel 8:30 to 12:00 pm training
Private & 1:00 to 5:00 pm test
Commercial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 31 Fumigation Initial & West Fargo, 8:00 a.m. registration
Recertification Speedway 8:30 to 12:00 pm training
Private & Restaurant 1:00 to 5:00 pm test
Commercial Event Center
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 6-8 Ground, Air, Initial Minot, NDSU 1:00 p.m. registration
AgPest, North Central 1:30 p.m. training begins
Research & R & E Center
Demo, Right Commercial Only
of Way, Seed
Treat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 20-22 Ground, Air, Initial West Fargo, 1:00 p.m. registration
AgPest, Speedway 1:30 p.m. training begins
Research & Restaurant
Demo, Right Event Center
of Way, Seed Commercial Only
Treat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 3-6 Aerial Only Recertification Fargo, TBA
AgPest, Ramada Hotel
Research & Commercial Only
* Exact Demo, Right
date TBA of Way, Seed
Treat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week of Fumigation Recertification Interactive 8:00 a.m. registration
Mar 12 Private & Video Network 8:30 to 12:00 pm training
TBA Commercial Locations TBA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 20-22 Ground, Air, Initial Dickinson, 1:00 p.m. registration
AgPest, Travel Lodge 1:30 p.m. training begins
Research & Commercial Only
Demo, Right
of Way, Seed
Treat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 2 Ground, Air, Recertification West Fargo, 8:00 a.m. registration
AgPest, Speedway 8:30 to 4:00 pm training
Research & Restaurant
Demo, Right Event Center
of Way, Seed Commercial Only
Treat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Dakota Department of Agriculture collected nearly 83 tons of unusable pesticides during July through the 2000 Project Safe Send (PSS) program. Since the first PSS collection in 1992, almost 500 tons of unusable pesticides have been collected, shipped out of state, and destroyed through the state-sponsored program.
This year, 166,949 pounds of pesticides were collected at 16 sites. The chemicals were put into barrels by Onyx Environmental Services and then shipped to federally-approved facilities for incineration or destruction. Chemicals collected include DDT, chlordane, toxaphene, and compounds containing mercury, arsenic and cyanide. (See attached table.)
Interestingly, nearly 72% of the wastes collected came primarily from rinsates. One company alone delivered 21,273 pounds of just rinsates. This calls into question whether or not rinsates should be eligible for future PSS collections since rinsates should ordinarily be disposed of through triple or pressure rinsing in the field, evaporation systems, biological digesting systems, and/or landfills.
PSS is funded by the state with product registration fees paid by pesticide manufacturers. The North Dakota Legislature must review PSS and decide whether or not to re-authorize the program during the 2001 session.
WASTES COLLECTED
-----------------------------------------------------
Waste Name Lbs % of Total
-----------------------------------------------------
TREFLAN (TRIFLURALIN) 10852 6.50
FARGO (TRIALLATE) 7245 4.34
2,4-D 6695 4.01
VITAVAX 4123 2.47
MCPA 3031 1.82
LINDANE 2969 1.78
CARBYNE 1768 1.06
CHLORPYRIFOS 1533 0.92
METHOXYCHLOR 1351 0.81
MANEB 1229 0.74
ATRAZINE 1225 0.73
TOXAPHENE 809 0.48
CHLOROPICRIN & METHYL BROMIDE 739 0.44
METHYL PARATHION 704 0.42
PARATHION 517 0.31
DDT 373 0.22
ARSENIC 185 0.11
DIOXINS 146 0.09
DIELDRIN 137 0.08
DINOSEB 60 0.04
ALDRIN 53 0.03
STRYCHNINE 35 0.02
CHLORDANE 32 0.02
HEPTACHLOR 22 0.01
ENDRIN 10 0.01
BALANCE:
Rinsate, surfactant, fertilizer 121106 72.54
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS = 166949 100
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Contact:
NDSU Pesticide Training and Certification Program
Box 5051, Fargo, ND 58105-5051
Tel: 701-231-7180
Fax: 701-231-8474
E-mail: pesticid@ndsuext.nodak.edu
Internet: www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/pesticid/pesticid.htm
Pesticide Quarterly -- Volume 18, No. 4, October 2000
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 upon request to people with
disabilities (701) 231-7881.
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service