Recent penalties

January 2009

• A grower with no private applicator license purchased and applied two restricted-use pesticides to an agricultural commodity. Penalty: $100

October 2008

• A lawn care company made a pesticide application to the turf of a commercial property but, at the time of the application, no company employee was licensed as a commercial applicator, the wrong type of gloves were worn for the herbicide applied, and the applicator’s pesticide application records were incomplete. Penalty: $250
• A company without a commercial pesticide applicator’s license applied an herbicide to a customer’s property. Penalty: $100

September 2008

• A lawn care company applied two herbicides as separate applications to school ball fields on a school day, but the school failed to provide proper notification prior to the applications, lacked records of the pesticide applications, and did not schedule applications to allow maximum drying time before re-entry. Penalty: $100
• A lawn care company applied two herbicides as separate applications to school ball fields on a school day. Students were present during the applications and used the treated fields during the day, the company did not schedule applications to allow maximum drying time before re-entry, and the applicator’s pesticide application records were incomplete. Penalty: $500
• A nursery/landscape company without a commercial pesticide applicator’s license made a custom application of an herbicide at a hospice facility. Penalty: $1000
• A vegetable grower with an expired private applicator license and expired certification applied two restricted-use pesticides to agricultural commodities. Penalty: $100
• Employees of a restricted-use pesticide dealer made multiple sales of restricted-use pesticides to six unlicensed applicators. Penalty: $1,400

August 2008

• A strawberry grower with an expired private applicator license and expired certification purchased and applied a restricted-use pesticide. Penalty: $100

March 2008

• An employee of a lawn care company made multiple pesticide applications to a property within 250 feet of someone listed on the Pesticide Notification Registry, but failed to provide adequate notice to the registry member. Penalty: $2,000
• An employee of a company applied a registered pesticide and vinegar, for pest control purposes, to a customer’s lawn. The employee did not have a commercial applicator’s license and did not post the treated area. Penalty: $500
• A company that provides water damage restoration work in customers’ homes applied a disinfectant germicidal cleaner and deodorant as part of its standard cleaning practice. At the time of the applications, no one in the company was certified as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $500
• The owner of a rental property occupied by a tenant applied Clorox bleach to control a mold problem, but was not licensed as a certified commercial applicator at the time. Penalty: $200

 January 2008

• An employee of a lawn care company applied a pesticide/fertilizer combination product to a property within 250 feet of someone listed on the Pesticide Notification Registry, but failed to provide adequate notice to the registry member. Penalty: $425
• An employee of a lawn care company made an unauthorized application of a selective herbicide to a residential property whose owner had not requested the service. Penalty: $750

July 2007

• A lawn care company made two unauthorized pesticide applications to a customer's lawn, one after the customer specifically called and said that no further services were wanted. Penalty: $1,250

June 2007

• Aerial pesticide applications were made to two blueberry fields when neither field was supposed to be sprayed. Penalty: $2,500
• A lawn care company applied a granular fertilizer/pesticide combination product to customers' lawns without a commerical applicator's license. Penalty: $100
• A licensed restricted-use pesticide dealership operated a major pesticide storage facility that did not comply with Board requirements contained in Chapter 24. Penalty: $2,000

April 2007

• An employee made a fungicide application to greens at a public golf course but, at the time of the application, no one at the course was licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $100

March 2007

• Two employees of a commercial pesticide applicator applied a mosquito-control insecticide to the backyard of a residence where no application was authorized. The applicators did not confirm the address to be sure they had the correct site location, nor did they report the misapplication to the property owner or their company supervisor. Penalty: $500
• An employee of a lawn care company applied a pesticide to a property within 250 feet of someone listed on the Pesticide Notification Registry, but failed to provide adequate notice to the registry member. Penalty: $500
• Testing determined that insecticide applied with a mist blower to a blueberry field by an employee of a commercial blueberry grower/processor drifted onto the property on the opposite side of the road. Penalty: $200
• An employee of a commercial blueberry grower/processor applied two herbicides to blueberry land, but was not wearing chemical-resistant gloves, as required by the herbicide label. In addition, the applicator's pesticide application record was incomplete for this job, and the company did not post Restricted Entry Intervals for these applications at their Central Information Display, as required by the Worker Protection Standard. Penalty: $200

February 2007

• An employee of a commerical lawn care company misread the street number on a work order and applied an herbicide to a portion of the turf at a residence where a lawn treatment was not authorized. Penalty: $750
• A fungicide application was made to greens at a public golf course but, at the time of the application, no one at the course was licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $600

May 2006

• Board office staff observed that two recertification forms with identical handwriting had been submitted with forms from a conference. Further investigation showed the handwriting on both forms matched that of one particular individual, and the person listed on the second form admitted he had not attended the conference. Penalty: $100
• A lawn care company failed to make adequate adjustments in response to the extremely wet weather in the Portland area during the week of May 22, 2005. A staff investigation revealed 4.11 inches of precipitation were recorded at the Portland Jetport during this period. Penalty: $400
• A retail store was distributing home-use diazinon granules 14 months after the final sell-through date had passed. Penalty: $500

March 2006

• Inspections at a dairy and vegetable farm over a three-year period revealed the owner had failed to provide pesticide safety training and post required information at a central location as required under the federal Worker Protection Standard. Penalty: $150
• A lawn care company failed to make adequate adjustments in response to the extremely wet weather in the Portland area during the week of May 22, 2005. A staff investigation revealed 4.11 inches of precipitation were recorded at the Portland Jetport during this period. Penalty: $7,500

February 2006

• In spring 2005, an employee of a hospital applied an herbicide to the perimeter of the hospital building, considered a place open to use by the public. At the time of application, no company employee was licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $500
• The owner of a public golf course made occasional applications of pesticides over a two-year period to the course turf. At the time of these applications, no person from the course was licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $300
• In 2004, a landowner complained that an aerial applicator made an unauthorized application of insecticide to his field. The Board's investigation determined the presence of an insecticide at levels normally seen in sprayed fields and did not find any evidence to suggest a different applicator treated the field. The applicator refused to admit they treated the field but, in order to settle the case, agreed to pay a monetary penalty and that any future violation could be considered a subsequent violation for purposes of assessing future penalties. Penalty: $3,500

January 2006

• Two pesticide applications were made to the turf at a public golf course but, at the time of the application, no company employee was licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $200

October 2005

• Two employees of a landscaping company made for-hire insecticide applications to ornamental trees on the grounds of a restaurant in May 2004, as well as weed-and-feed applications for other customers that spring. At the time of the applications, the company did not have anyone licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $250
• A beekeeper made six separate purchases and applications of the restricted-use Phostoxin to control greater wax moth in his equipment. At the time of these purchases and applications, the individual did not posses a private applicator license. Penalty: $750
• An out-of-state dealer made six separate sales of the restricted-use Phostoxin to a beekeeper. At the time of these sales, the company was not licensed as a restricted-use pesticide dealer. Penalty: $500
• An employee of a property services company performed a custom application of pesticides to the grounds of a commercial building. At the time of the application, the employee did not have a commercial license nor was he being supervised by a licensed commercial applicator. Penalty: $100
• An employee of a company contracted by the Maine DOT to control roadside brush made a powered herbicide application within 20 feet of a stream. This was in violation of the variance permit that had been granted by the Board requiring a buffer of 50 feet for powered application equipment. Penalty: $100
• A lawn care company employee made a commercial application of an insecticide to a property less than 250 feet from another property listed on the 2005 Pesticide Notification Registry. The company failed to provide notice to the registrant in advance of the application. Penalty: $1,000
• A lawn care company made two pesticide applications to turf areas surrounding two separate residences located on a particular road and town, when the intended clients actually lived on a different road in another town. Penalty: $3,000

September 2005

• An out-of-state spray contracting firm made two soil fumigation treatments to two strawberry farms during the summer of 2004, but did not have a master applicator available in Maine. Penalty: $300
• A pesticide application was made to the turf at a public golf course but, at the time of the application, no company employee was licensed as a commercial applicator; the course also failed to maintain a record of the application. Penalty: $400

July 2005

• A farm's application of herbicide to its broccoli fields drifted onto a 27-year-old pine plantation, resulting in significant desiccation of approximately 180 pine trees. Penalty: $500
• An applicator with an expired master applicator license applied pesticides to the lawns of four customers during the summer of 2004. Penalty: $100
• A pesticide application was made to the turf at a public golf course but, at the time of the application, no company employee was licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $200

June 2005

• An unlicensed lawn and landscape maintenance company subcontracted with a licensed company to make pesticide applications for interested customers. A new customer who said she did not wish to receive any pesticide applications discovered that the turf at her home was still treated by the company. Penalty: $100
• A pesticide application was made to the turf at a public golf course but, at the time of the application, no company employee was licensed as a commercial applicator. Penalty: $500
• A commercial applicator who treats agricultural crops with products that bear label language requiring conformance with the federal Worker Protection Standard failed to provide the required handler safety training. Penalty: $150

April 2005

• A lawn care company applied an herbicide to turf areas around a residence at the wrong address. Penalty: $1,500

March 2005

• An employee of a commercial landscaping company performed an application without a license or being under the supervision of a licensed applicator. Also, the product was not labeled for the site. Penalty: $400
• Applications to a golf course were made over a season by unlicensed employees. Application records were also not maintained. Penalty: $150

January 2005

• Inspections at a potato farm over a three-year period revealed the owner had failed to provide pesticide handler safety training as required under the federal Worker Protection Standard. Penalty: $200
• A grower while attending a recertification meeting submitted attendance verification forms not only for himself but for his brother, who was not present. Penalty: $300

December 2004

• A city's parks and recreation department failed to notify a registrant on the Pesticide Notification Registry. Penalty: $250
• Three stores belonging to a national chain were cited on nine occasions over three years for not posting the required pesticide self-service display area sign. Penalty: $450

November 2004

• A company failed to give notice to a neighbor listed on the Pesticide Notification Registry before applying an herbicide. A minimum of 6 hours advance notice is required. Penalty: $150
• Twice a lawn care company mistakenly serviced the wrong address. Penalty: $400
• A general use pesticides dealer was operating without a license five of the last six years and also continued to sell cancelled chlorpyrifos. Penalty: $500
• A licensed commercial applicator was fined for not cleaning up spilled granular pesticides at the company's warehouse and for throwing away unrinsed pesticide containers. Penalty: $500

October 2004

• A pesticide dealer continued to sell chlorpyrifos products after they were no longer legal to be sold, stored pesticides outside in an unprotected area and within 10 feet of animal feed. Penalty: $250
• A grower failed to maintain pesticide application records over a two year period. Penalty: $50
• A railroad company was fined for allowing the drift of two herbicides that resulted in damage of turf and ornamental plants. Penalty: $500
• An aerial application of fungicide to a blueberry field drifted onto a property located on the opposite side of the highway. Penalty: $1,500

September 2004

• A firm was fined for not renewing its master applicator and spray contracting licenses. Penalty: $75
• An applicator applied pesticides in 17 to 19 miles per hour wind—a violation of the Board's drift minimizing regulation Chapter 22. Penalty: $350
• Three different properties mistakenly were treated with an herbicide application. Penalty: $3,000
• A greenhouse grower failed to keep pesticide application records for two years. Penalty: $50

July 2004

• A lawn care company applied an herbicide to a residential property that had not requested the service. Penalty: $1,000

June 2004

• An out-of-state retailer failed to renew its General Use Pesticide Dealer License for two years. Penalty: $60
• A retail outfit was fined for selling phased-out chlorpyrifos. Penalty: $250
• While an applicator was certified during 2001, 2002 and 2003 at his company of employment, an inn/country club, he failed to renew his license annually over the three years. Penalty: $400

April 2004

• A pesticide manufacturer/dealer was fined for not registering an aquatic herbicide product it was selling in Maine, not obtaining the required pesticide dealer license for two years running and selling an aquatic herbicide to an unlicensed Maine resident. Only a licensed applicator may purchase and apply an aquatic herbicide in Maine. Penalty: $4,500

March 2004

• A Garlon 4 application was made to a transmission power line that damaged an adjacent potato field. This violated both the label, which states the product should not come into contact with desirable broadleaf plants, and the Board's Chapter 22 regulation, requiring protection of sensitive areas and minimize drift. Penalty: $750

December 2003

• A general use pesticides dealer was fined for not holding a valid license seven out of the past ten years. Penalty: $200

• A general use pesticides dealer distributed pesticides over a four-year period without a license. Also, in the two years following this period, the dealer did not renew their license until after inspector visits. Penalty: $240
• Unlicensed golf course employees made pesticide applications over the course of a season. Anyone applying pesticides to a public place must have a commercial applicator license. Penalty: $250
• A grower's co-op was distributing pesticides, including restricted-use hexazinone, without any type of license. Also, some of the sales were to unlicensed applicators. Penalty: $200
• During a routine inspection, an unlicensed grower was found to have bought and applied hexazinone to his fields. Hexazinone can only be purchased and applied by licensed pesticide applicators. Penalty: $200

October 2003

• Employees, who did not hold commercial applicator licenses, applied pesticides to a golf course's turf over the course of one season. A commercial license is required to apply pesticides to places open to use by the public. Penalty: $250
• During a routine inspection, it was discovered that a golf course's employees had been applying pesticides without a license from 1999 through 2003. Penalty: $750
• For three years, employees at a golf course were making pesticide applications even though none of the applicators held a license. Penalty: $350
• Garden Tech Sevin Concentrate was applied to an outdoor playground open to the public. A commercial license is required in this situation. This violation turned up from a complaint call to the BPC. Penalty: $350
• An aerial applicator did not properly determine the boundaries of the area to be treated and mistakenly sprayed an abutting property with Imidan. Penalty: $350

BPC inspectors report GROWERS (or private applicators) commonly fail to:

• wear all the Personal Protective Equipment required by the label
• calibrate equipment and keep records of the calibration
• identify sensitive areas and keep records of them
• keep all of the required application records ( EPA registration number, active ingredient, and restricted entry interval are commonly missing)
• keep any records
• store correctly labeled pesticides in a secure location
• comply with Worker Protection Standards:
• post Central Information Displays
• train agricultural workers or pesticide handlers
• notify workers of application
• provide decontamination sites within ¼ mile of work site
• mix the correct rate ratios
• use a total release aerosol correctly. (often a greenhouse is too small for the size container used)

BPC inspectors report COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS may fail to:

• provide adequate notice to those listed on the Pesticides Notification Registry
• renew license

BPC inspectors report LAWN APPLICATORS have been known to:

• make an application at the wrong address

BPC inspectors report COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS commonly fail to:

• mix the correct rate ratios. Many labels have different mix ratios for both per square foot and per gallon.

Questions on how to stay in compliance with regulations? Contact Henry Jenning, chief of compliance, by e-mail or calling the BPC main office at 207-287-2731.