Case 1 An applicator applied a herbicide. It drifted onto adjacent property causing damage. It was also determined that the application was at a higher rate than recommended on the label. The responsible party was cited for USE OF A PESTICIDE INCONSISTENT WITH LABEL DIRECTIONS.

Case 2 An out-of-state firm had been contracted to landscape a highway. A weed control chemical was applied around the new planting. A pesticide inspector saw the operation and stopped to observe. He became aware that the company did not have a business license. The firm was cited for ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF APPLYING A PESTICIDE ON LANDS OF ANOTHER WITH OUT HAVING A LICENSE GRANTED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Case 3 After an application, the operator had material left. He released it into a ditch. He was observed by a State Fish and Wildlife employee and reported. The applicator was cited for DISPOSING OF A PESTICIDE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CAUSE INJURY TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

Case 4 A Farmer painted a fence with a restricted use pesticide. Neighbors complained about the odor. An inspector determined that the farmer had an invalid private applicator certification. The inspector also found that the dealer who had sold the product had been selling restricted use pesticides to uncertified applicators. The applicator was cited for PURCHASING OR USING A RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE WITHOUT BEING CERTIFIED. The dealer was cited with SELLING A RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE TO AN UNCERTIFIED APPLICATOR.

Case 5 An operator used a fogger for roaches in a restaurant. The restaurant's fire alarm was activated by the fog. Fog was seen in the adjoining barber shop. It was determined that too high a rate was used to treat the area. The operator was CITED WITH MAKING A PESTICIDE APPLICATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE LABELING.

For more information, contact the Delaware Department of Agriculture at
1-800-282-8685.