FY2007 - 1st quarter - Office of Indiana State Chemist

CASE SUMMARY
Case #2005/0425
Complainant:
Tom Neltner
5244 Carrollton Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46220
317-442-3973
Target:
Jake Houston
Cheryl Whitfield
The Home Depot (RC-207459)
2225 N. Post Rd.
Indianapolis, IN 46219
1.
On 7-19-05, I conducted a registered consultant inspection at the above location.
2.
Upon arrival I went to the pesticide section of the store. I was approached by a
subject who was later identified to me as Marcus Quarles. I asked Mr. Quarles if
he could recommend to me something that I could use to kill yellow jackets that
were nesting in my yard. Mr. Quarles, after some stammering around and looking
throughout the area, pointed out some wasp and hornet spray.
3.
I then identified myself to Mr. Quarles and asked to speak with a manager. I was
then introduced to Mr. Houston, Operations Manager, to whom I issued a Notice
of Inspection (NOI). Mr. Houston and I were joined by Ms. Whitfield, District
Safety Manager. We then retired to a back office.
4.
Once in the back office, it was determined that Mr. Quarles had not been trained
to provide advice on the selection and use of pesticides. Mr. Houston provided me
with a list of three people that were employed at this location that had been
trained, none of whom were actually on the premises at the time of my visit.
5.
This location did have signs posted in the pesticide section advising customers
that only trained personnel would be able to give advice on the selection and use
of pesticides. There was also a sign posted in the back on an employee bulletin
board advising employees that only trained personnel are allowed to give
pesticide advise.
Kevin W. Neal
Pesticide Investigator
Date: July 25, 2005
DISPOSITION: The Home Depot was cited for violation of section 14(6) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow the Registered Consultant rule.
A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. This case file
was forwarded for collection of the civil penalty.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: July 25, 2005
Final Date: September 28, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0153
(See 2006/0132)
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist
175 S. University St.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Brent Hensley
(PA-48730, expired 2001)
13614 East 300 South
Greentown, IN 46936
765-628-3568
1.
I conducted a routine license, facility and records inspection at The Andersons (B6400), 8086 East 900 South, Galveston, IN 46932 on November 28, 2005.
During the inspection I noted irregularities in the Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP)
sales records.
2.
Invoices and records indicated the above applicator purchased “Cinch ATZ”,
EPA Reg. #352-624, active ingredients atrazine and s-metolachlor, “Atrazine
4L”, EPA Reg. #1381-158, active ingredient atrazine on 6/14/04. He purchased
“Warrior”, EPA Reg#100-1112, active ingredient lambda-cyhalothrin on
7/11/05. I collected copies of the two invoices.
3.
I spoke with Mr. Hensley on 12/28/05. He stated that he did not know his private
applicator permit had expired until notified recently by Joe Johnson, the manager
of The Andersons. Mr. Hensley stated that he used the above RUP’s on his farm
and made the applications himself.
Leo A. Reed
Pesticide Investigator
Date: January 23, 2006
Disposition: Brent Hensley was cited for two counts of violation of section 14(10) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for using restricted use pesticides without
having a certification. A civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 ($100.00 for each
violation) was assessed. By rule, these violations may not be mitigated. This case file
was forwarded for collection of the civil penalty.
George N. Saxton
Pesticide Investigator
Draft Date: January 23, 2006
Final Date: September 28, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0219
Complaint:
Denny Henderson
3453 Nolen Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46234
317-299-2676
Applicator:
John Collins
John’s Tree Service
1270 S. Dequincy
Indianapolis, IN 46203
317-357-3718
1. On February 16, 2006, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information from
Denny Henderson that John’s Tree Service performed a pesticide application on several trees in
his yard. Mr. Henderson stated that the application consisted of drilling small holes in the trees
cambium layer and driving a pre-packaged container of Abasol, EPA reg. #7946-20, active
ingredient debacarb, carbendazim, and abamectin. Mr. Henderson stated that his wife was
told that it would take a few weeks for the tree to absorb the pesticide and they had to come back
to collect and return the empty containers or they could loose their pesticide application license.
Mr. Henderson stated that no one from John’s Tree Service returned to collect the container. Mr.
Henderson stated that his phone calls went unanswered.
2. On February 28, 2006, I met with Mr. and Mrs. Henderson. Mr. Henderson gave me a copy of
the invoice for service performed by John’s Tree Service, which included the notation, “2
injections high valume & sexicide” (sic) and a copy of the cashed check to John’s Tree Service.
Furthermore, Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Henderson signed Affidavit’s documenting their
experience with John’s Tree Service. Mr. Henderson gave me a bag of empty Abasol containers
used to treat four (4) Maples trees and one (1) Birch tree.
3. On March 6, 2006, I met with John Collins to discuss the allegations. Mr. Collins stated he was
unaware he needed a license to use Abasol. Mr. Collins stated since Mauget would only sell him
Abasol and not the products that needed a license, he could use Abasol. Mr. Collins stated he had
used the Abasol several times but did not have any paperwork to show application. Mr. Collins
stated that his supply of Abasol was taken in a burglary along with other equipment. Mr. Collins
was issued a modified Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order. The Order instructs Mr. Collins that it
is a violation of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law to apply pesticides for-hire
without a license.
Paul J. Kelley
Pesticide Investigator
Date: March 15, 2006
Disposition: John Collins and John’s Tree Service were cited for violation of section 14(9) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide
business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. This case file
was forwarded for collection of the civil penalty.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: March 15, 2006
Final Date: September 28, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0326
Complainant:
Dean Rusk
5983 S. Broadview Road
Colfax, IN
765-324-2440
Business:
C. F. O.
Industrial Pallet Corp.
Jay Wiegand
11349 US 52 South
Clarks Hill, IN 47930
765-523-2298
1) Mr. Dean Rusk contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report that he
has had one cow die and three others abort calves recently. Mr. Rusk stated that he
believes the cows are drinking contaminated water. Mr. Rusk is having the Purdue
Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory perform tests on his dead cow. He stated that he
would forward any findings.
2) Prior to my arrival, Leighanne Hahn, OISC Water Quality Specialist, spoke with Mr.
Rusk and had taken a variety of water samples from in and around Mr. Rusk’s property.
(See Ms. Hahn’s attached report for details of samples and analysis.)
3) I met with Mr. Rusk on April 25, 2006. We met at his pasture located north east of the
intersection of SR 28 and County Line Road (Clinton and Tippecanoe counties). Mr.
Rusk explained that Industrial Pallet Corp. trenched a 16 inch tile in their property. The
tile drains into an open ditch from which his cows drink. Mr. Rusk stated that he did not
have any problems with his cows prior to the tile being placed. Mr. Rusk also stated that
he has contacted the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to
report that the storm water from the company appears contaminated.
4) I photographed the open ditch (Figures 1-2) and diagramed the area. Leighanne Hahn
took water samples on 4/19/06.
5) I met with Jay Wiegand of Industrial Pallet Corp on April 25, 2006. Mr. Wiegand
explained how the company operates. Industrial Pallet Corp. makes new food grade
pallets as well as recycles old wooden pallets. The new pallets are made from new, fresh
lumber. After being nailed, the pallets are treated with a pesticide spray (Figure 3). The
spay consists of “PQ-80”, EPA Reg. #1022-489-71581, active ingredient copper 8quinolinolate and “Tuff-Brite”, EPA Reg. #1022-584-71581, active ingredient
chlorothalonil. After being sprayed, the pallets are stacked and eventually moved into
industrial heater/dryers for several hours. They are then taken to semi trailers until
moved to distribution centers. The pallets are never left outside. After pesticide and heat
1
treatment, they are considered food grade and insect free. They are stored inside the
trailers until they are trucked offsite.
6) The company also recycles old pallets. Old broken pallets are remade into usable pallets.
The majority of broken pallets come from 5 main sources. 3 of the 5 use food grade
pallets that could have been treated at one time. Pallets and pieces of wood that cannot
be reused are shredded into mulch and sold. The mulch piles are outside, at the rear of
plant.
7) Mr. Wiegand explained that the company did close up an open ditch that ran through the
property. They used tile and manholes (Figures 6-7) to move surface water off the
property to the open ditch that runs east and west, along the rail bed (Figure 1). Mr.
Wiegand stated that the water from the company has always gone into the open ditch.
The company merely closed the open ditch/swale and added the drainage tile.
8) During my inspection of the site, I noted that the pesticide application equipment was
being cleaned. Residue and effluent were puddled on the floor. Residue that drips off of
the treated pallets is swept into a floor drain (Figure 4) and runs out of the building
(Figure 5) and eventually flows into the drainage tile to the open creek.
9) It should be noted that “PQ-80” label and the “Tuff-Brite” label both read, “DO NOT
contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwater.” The labels also state, “DO
NOT discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds estuaries,
oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting authority
has been notified in writing prior to the discharge.”
10) I returned to Industrial Pallet on 5-2-06, along with Agent Jay Kelley of OISC. The
purpose of our visit was to obtain additional water and soil samples. Agent Kelley and I
met with Mr. Wiegand. Mr. Weigand explained that the pesticides that they currently use
have been used for approximately 3 years. Mr. Weigand supplied material safety data
sheets for the colorant used on the mulch. He also supplied a drainage map of the
property.
11) Agent Kelley and I obtained water from the outflow pipe as it leads into a county
maintained open ditch on the north side of the property (Figure 8). We also obtained soil
from the east side of the property, between the mulch and the open ditch (Figure 9). All
samples were taken to the OISC residue lab for analysis.
12) The OISC residue laboratory reported the water samples from the drainage pipe as .2
ppm (parts per million) of chlorothalonil, 4.94 ppb (parts per billion) of propiconazole
and 16.8 parts per million of copper. The soil analysis did not find anything other than
copper in the amount of 27ppm.
Leo A. Reed
Pesticide Investigator
Date: July 3, 2006
2
Disposition: Industrial Pallet Corporation was cited for violation of section 14(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding discharge of
the pesticide from the treatment site. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for
this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Figure 1. View of open ditch and
Industrial Pallet.
Figure 3. Pesticide application equipment.
Draft Date: July 19, 2006
Final Date: September 27, 2006
Figure 2. Open drainage ditch, leading
under rail bed.
Figure 4. Treated Pallets and effluent
entering floor drain.
3
Figure 5. Exterior outflow from floor drain.
Figure 7. Storm drain and tile.
Figure 6. Storm drain and tile.
Figure 8. Drain tile into open ditch.
Water sample point 5-2-06
Figure 9. Mulch piles, east side.
Site of Soil samples.
4
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0371
Complainant:
Ron Pries
Pries, Inc.
3550 W. CR700S
Wabash, IN 46992
Business:
Mark Pfister
PEI
14319 Smith Road
Yoder, IN 46798
Certified Applicator
Unlicensed Business
Jon Elliott
Pfister Sprinklers
332 Edith Blvd.
Huntington, IN 46750
Certified Applicator
Licensed Business
1.
Ron Pries contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report that Mark
Pfister, of PEI, submitted a proposal to the Wabash Little League (WLL) for maintenance
services, including for-hire pesticide applications. Mr. Pries provided a copy of PEI’s
proposal, dated 2-6-2006, which outlined various services including weed control for the
outfields and grass infields. Mr. Pries indicated he did not believe PEI had been issued an
Indiana pesticide business license. A check of OISC records indicated PEI is not a
licensed business.
2.
I spoke with Mr. Pries, who reported that he had also submitted a proposal after a WLL
board member asked him to look at PEI’s proposal. Mr. Pries stated that he informed
board members that PEI is not a licensed business, and for-hire pesticide applications
require a licensed applicator. Mr. Pries indicated that PEI was awarded the contract
anyway and he believed some work may have been done in the fall of 2005.
3.
On 5-15-2006, I met with Mark Pfister at the PEI office. Mr. Pfister stated that PEI does
not have a business license and did submit the proposal. However, he stated that Pfister
Sprinklers, a sister company run by his brother, was issued a pesticide business license in
April, after he learned a license was needed. Mr. Pfister stated that pesticide applications
would be subcontracted to Pfister Sprinklers, using certified applicator Jon Elliott. He
provided a copy of Mr. Elliott’s applicator license, a statement explaining the situation
and a copy of a letter sent to the WLL which indicated Pfister Sprinklers would make the
pesticide applications and they would be billed accordingly.
1
4.
Mr. Pries then called to report that Mr. Elliott, the certified applicator, may no longer
work for Pfister Sprinklers. Further, he stated that WLL treasurer, Ronnie Osborne, may
have records verifying work was done to the fields in 2005.
5.
I spoke with Pfister Sprinklers owner, Jim Pfister, regarding the allegation that Mr. Elliott
no longer worked for him. Mr. Pfister stated that Mr. Elliott is still on the company’s
payroll, but only works part-time on an as-needed basis. Mr. Pfister stated the WLL
account is the only one which requires pesticide applications. Mr. Elliott later confirmed
that he works as a part-time laborer for Pfister Sprinklers and he also serves as the
company’s certified applicator.
6.
I spoke with Ronnie Osborne about the possibility of obtaining copies of invoices for
work done at the WLL fields. Mr. Osborne stated he paid a bill for maintenance work
done in the fall of 2005 and, although he was not sure pesticides were applied at that
time, he would forward the invoice to me. OISC received a copy of an invoice for
aeration, overseeding and fertilization completed in October of 2005. No pesticides were
applied in 2005.
Andrew R. Roth
Pesticide Investigator
Date: September 25, 2006
Disposition: Mark Pfister and PEI were cited for violation of section 14(9) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for professing to be in the business of applying pesticides for
hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of
$250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: October 2, 2006
Final Date: November 27, 2006
2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0393
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 South University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
Business:
Brent Schlegel
E.M.P. Co-op
306 W. South Street
Monroeville, IN 46773
Certified Applicator
1.
On 8-29-2006, I performed a re-inspection at the above facility to determine compliance of the
Worker Protection Standards (WPS). The facility was found to be in violation during an inspection by
OISC agent, Leo Reed, on 12-16-2003 (see case number 2004/0105).
2.
I met with and interviewed secretary Sharon Grace. The facility manager, certified applicator Brent
Schlegel, was not available. I explained that the facility had been cited for violation and that I was
performing a re-inspection to determine compliance. Ms. Grace explained that many of the
applicators employed at the facility in 2003 are no longer with the company. Ms. Grace did not know
if the facility was providing customers with the required WPS customer information. According to
Ms. Grace, when an order is taken for an application, customers know what pesticide(s) will be
applied, as well as the location and projected date of the application. However, it was determined that
most of the required “exchange of information” was not being passed on to customers. We discussed
several ways the company could come into compliance with that provision of the WPS.
3.
I also interviewed certified applicator Spencer Balliet and completed a full WPS inspection report.
4.
I obtained a copy of the spray ticket for the most recent pesticide application. Roundup Original Max
(EPA Reg.#524-539), active ingredient glyphosate, was applied on 8-9-2006. The Roundup Original
Max label references the WPS in the Agricultural Use Requirements section.
5.
I later called Steve Queen, the company’s safety coordinator, at his Ohio office. We discussed the
scope of the inspection and I explained the WPS requirements to Mr. Queen. Mr. Queen explained
that he recently assumed the responsibilities for the Monroeville facility, but he would work with the
company agronomist and branch manager to ensure compliance.
Andrew R. Roth
Pesticide Investigator
Date: September 1, 2006
Disposition: Brent Schlegel and E.M.P. Co-op were cited for violation of section 14(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow the Agriculture Use Requirements part of the label
regarding Worker Protection. A civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact that this is their second violation of similar nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: September 6, 2006
Final Date: October 10, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0395
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 South University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
Business:
Applicator:
Crop Production Services (formerly Royster Clark)
Mike Johns
(Certified Applicator)
3626 E. CR550S
Bluffton, IN 46714
1.
On 8-21-2006, I performed a re-inspection at the above facility to determine compliance of the Worker
Protection Standards (WPS). The facility had been found to be in violation of the WPS during an
inspection by OISC agent, Leo Reed, on 12-2-2003. Further, Mr. Reed determined the facility had
failed to properly supervise a non-licensed/non-registered employee who had made for-hire pesticide
applications (Case#20040085).
2.
I met with and interviewed farm center manager Ted Savage. Mr. Savage explained that he had only
been with the company four months. He also indicated the facility became a branch of Crop Production
Services effective 8-1-2006. I explained that the facility had been cited for violations and that I was
performing a re-inspection to determine compliance. Mr. Savage did not know if the facility was
providing customers with the required WPS customer information.
3.
I also interviewed certified applicator Mike Johns, the facility’s only certified applicator, and completed
a full WPS inspection report. According to Mr. Johns, before an application, customers are verbally
notified as to what pesticide(s) will be applied, as well as the location, date and the time of the
application. He stated he thought the company was supplying the required information. I explained to
Mr. Johns that the facility is also required to relay the re-entry interval (REI), the EPA registration
number(s), the active ingredient(s) and the required personal protective equipment. I informed both Mr.
Johns and Mr. Savage of the required “exchange of information” and how the company could come into
compliance with that provision of the WPS.
4.
I obtained a copy of the spray ticket for the most recent pesticide application. Touchdown herbicide
(EPA Reg.#100-1117), active ingredient glyphosate, was applied on 7-18-2006. The Touchdown label
references the WPS in the Agricultural Use Requirements section.
Andrew R. Roth
Pesticide Investigator
Date: August 22, 2006
Disposition: Mike Johns and Crop Production Services (formerly Royster Clark) were cited for violation of
section 14(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding
the Agricultural Use Requirements. A civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact that this is their second violation of similar nature (see 2004/0085).
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: August 24, 2006
Final Date: October 10, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0485
Complainant:
Aaron Laskowski
52215 N. Lilac Rd.
South Bend, IN 46628
574-277-2424
Applicator:
Mike Shewchuk
Advance Property Maintenance of S. Bend
2043 S. Bend Ave.
South Bend, IN 46637
574-273-8047
Richard Heim III
Quality Green Lawncare
20089 Darden Rd.
South Bend, IN 46637
574-876-7364
1. On June 16, 2006, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information
that Mike Shewchuk and Shewchuk Landscaping and Maintenance were applying
pesticides for hire to ponds and turf in the South Bend area. According to OISC records,
there is no licensed pesticide business with the name “Shewchuk” nor are there any
certified applicators with the name Shewchuk.
2. On June 21, 2006, I went to South Bend and contacted Mr. Laskowski who advised that
Shewchuk was doing business with Weiss Homes and that the contact person with Weiss
Homes is Brian Miller.
3. I went to Weiss Homes’ office, 828 E. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, and met with Mr.
Miller. I identified myself to him and advised that I would like to get copies of any
invoices, contracts or other paperwork they would have regarding Weiss Home’s dealings
with Shewchuk Landscaping and Maintenance. At that time Mr. Miller stated that he did
not have time to gather such documentation so I left him my card and asked him to
forward that information to me as soon as he could.
4. I then went to the address I had for Shewchuk Landscaping and Maintenance, 19862
Adams Rd. in South Bend, and found that there was no one there. I called the number for
Shewchuk and could not get anyone to answer so I left a message for someone to contact
me as soon as possible.
1
5. On June 30, 2006, copies of the requested invoices, contracts etc. from Weiss Homes had
not been received. A subpoena was sent to Mr. Miller at Weiss homes.
6. On July 5, 2006, the subpoena was received by Weiss Homes.
7. On July 11th, 2006, I received from Mr. Miller thirty-six (36) documents that he says are
all the invoices that Weiss Homes has paid to Mr. Shewchuk over the last three years.
8. In early 2006, Shewchuk Landscape became Advance Property Maintenance of South
Bend Inc.. Nine (9) of the invoices are on Advance Property Maintenance letterhead
while the other twenty-seven (27) are on Shewchuk Landscaping and Maintenance
letterhead.
9. The invoices indicate that on three separate occasions ponds were treated to control algae.
Those dates were 4-26-04; 8-13-04; 8-31-04. On three separate occasions estimates were
given by Mr. Shewchuk to Weiss Homes for fertilization and broadleaf weed control.
Those are dated 2-28-04; 2-29-04; 3-4-04. Also, on thirteen (13) other occasions Mr.
Shewchuk purported himself to be in the business of applying pesticides for hire and
those dates are 3-31-04; 5-3-04; 7-2-04; 10-3-04; 5-6-05; 5-31-05; 6-1-05; 7-4-05; 9-505; 9-7-05; 11-2-05;
12-3-05; 5-1-06. The following dates are those where an actual
pesticide application was made by Mr. Heim and Quality Green Lawncare. There are
thirteen (13) of those as well: 3-31-04; 4-24-04; 6-10-04; 6-21-04; 9-28-04; 9-14-04; 4-505; 5-31-05; 6-14-05; 8-31-05; 10-31-05; 11-30-05; 4-30-06.
10. I received a phone call from Mike Shewchuk who stated that he had sub-contracted the
turf pesticide applications to Mr. Heim and Quality Green Lawncare. Mr. Shewchuk
advised that Mr. Heim was licensed and certified. In checking OISC records I found that
Mr. Heim was not in fact licensed or certified to apply pesticides for hire in Indiana.
11. On July 11, 2006, via e-mail, I inquired of Mr. Miller if he was aware that Mr. Shewchuk
was sub-contracting the lawn care portion of his duties and if the invoices where
fertilization was indicated were understood to include treating for weeds as well. Mr.
Miller responded by saying that he had no idea if Mr. Shewchuk was sub-contracting any
of the work and that he understood they were to be on a four step program which includes
broadleaf weed control.
12. On July 13th, 2006, I met with Mr. Shewchuk and took a statement from him wherein he
says that in early 2004 he contracted with Weiss home to provide them with lawn and
landscape maintenance including treatment of turf for broadleaf weeds. He stated he
contracted with Mr. Heim and Quality Green Lawncare to perform the fertilization and
weed control. Mr. Shewchuk believed Mr. Heim to be licensed and certified. Mr.
Shewchuk also stated that he contracted with Weiss Homes to provide algae control to
ponds on property under Weiss control but that he did not sub-contract that work and he
performed those applications himself using Aquashade purchased from Rural King.
13. On July 14th, 2006, I met with Mr. Heim and took a statement from him wherein he states
that he did lead Mr. Shewchuk to believe that he was a licensed and certified pesticide
2
business. Mr. Heim stated that he has been making pesticide applications since early
2004.
14. Mr. Shewchuk dated and initialed the invoices indicating the applications that were made
by Mr. Heim. Mr. Shewchuk also dated and initialed the invoices indicating the aquatic
applications he himself had made.
15. Mr. Heim also dated and initialed the invoices indicating the pesticide applications he had
made.
16. Mr. Heim advised that at one time he worked for Tru-Green Chemlawn as a certified
applicator.
Kevin W. Neal
Pesticide Investigator
Date: July 17, 2006
DISPOSITION: Mike Shewchuk and Advance Property Maintenance of South Bend were
cited for violation of section 14(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for
professing to be in the business of applying pesticides for hire on lawns without having an
Indiana pesticide business license. Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Shewchuk
thought he was in compliance by sub-contracting the pesticide applications.
Mike Shewchuk and Advance Property Maintenance of South Bend were cited for three (3)
counts of applying aquatic pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business
license. A civil penalty in the amount of $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00 per count) was
assessed for these violations. However, the civil penalty was reduced to $562.00.
Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Shewchuk cooperated during the investigation.
Richard Heim III and Quality Green Lawncare were cited for thirteen (13) counts of violation
of section 14(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for
hire without having and Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of
$3,250.00 (13 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed for these violations. However, the
civil penalty was reduced to $2,437.00. Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Heim
III cooperated during the investigation. This case file was forwarded for collection of the
civil penalty from Quality Green Lawncare.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: July 19, 2006
Final Date: September 28, 2006
3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0533
Complainant:
Randy & Joanne Butler
1786 W. Apple Ave.
West Terre Haute, IN 47885
812-535-1785
Business:
Illiana Pest Control
15509 N. 400 St.
Martinsville, IL 46224
Dee Bolinger
812-234-0125
Certified Applicator
1.
On July 13, 2006, this office received information that Illiana Pest Control
had allegedly completed a termiticide application at the above address and
had spaced drill holes approximately thirty (30) inches apart. The label of
the product allegedly requires drill holes be twelve (12) to fourteen (14)
inches apart.
2.
On July 17, 2006, I met with Randy and Joanne Butler. Mr. Butler
informed me that on June 27, 2006, Illiana Pest Control came out to
complete a termite treatment to the new home they were buying. Mr.
Butler stated that while they were completing the treatment, another pest
control company came by and informed Mr. Dee Bolinger of Illiana Pest
that his drill holes were too far apart for the product he was using. Mr.
Butler also stated that Illiana did not drill and treat the garage during the
first application and had to be called back out. Mr. Butler stated he did
not witness Mr. Bolinger trench around any part of the home and was
concerned that the treatment would not be effective.
3.
I inspected the home and observed that drill holes on both the front porch
and garage floor were approximately thirty (30) inches apart. In addition,
the exterior perimeter of the home, showed no signs of recent trenching
(compact soil, mold growth, ivy growth). In addition, no drill holes were
observed to the concrete stoops at the west garage entrance and the south
front door entrance. Further more, no drill holes were observed in the
back concrete patio slab. The following photographs were taken:
1
Photo #1: Drill hole spacing- front porch
4.
On July 17, 2006, I spoke with Mr. Bolinger. He stated that he had
treated this home using Termidor SC (EPA Reg. #7969-210; active
ingredient: fipronil). Mr. Bolinger informed me that he did not trench the
home because the home owner had indicated that they did not want him to
tear-up the ivy growing along the back of the home. Mr. Bolinger also
stated that the slope of the property ran toward a small creek and that he
did not want the chemical to run off into the creek. Mr. Bolinger indicated
that the home owners had not requested that the drill holes be so far apart
and that he believed that the application to these holes had been sufficient.
Mr. Bolinger informed me that he did not have the home owners sign a
disclosure form for the deviations to the label requirements he had made.
Mr. Bolinger was informed that he needed to send me copies of all the
required treatment records for this property and a signed statement for
how he had completed this application. The requested information was
received on July 20, 2006. The records submitted did not indicate the
termiticide used, EPA regulation number, or dilution rate. The records
indicated that 297 gallons of use dilution had been used to treat the
structure. Mr. Bolinger’s records indicated that some horizontal treatment
was completed to the brick foundation walls.
5.
•
•
•
6.
Photo #2: No evidence of trenching
Calculations performed by the Office of the Indiana State Chemist for this
structure were as follows:
Vertical treatment exterior: 218 linear feet x 4 gallons/10 linear feet (.4) x
2 feet depth = 174.4 gallons of use dilution.
Vertical treatment interior garage: 76 linear feet x 4 gallons/ 10 linear feet
(.4) x 1 foot depth = 30.4 gallons of use dilution.
Total use dilution needed for the Termidor label = 204.8 gallons of use
dilution.
The Termidor label stated the following: “Rod holes must be spaced so as
to achieve a continuous treated zone but in no case more than 12 inches
2
apart”. The label also stated: “The applicator must trench and rod into
the trench or trench along the foundation walls…”.
Scott M. Farris
Pesticide Investigator
Date: August 23, 2006
Disposition: Dee Bolinger and Illiana Pest Control were warned for violation of
355 IAC 4-5-2(1) under the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure
to keep complete termiticide application records.
Dee Bolinger and Illiana Pest Control were cited for violation of section 14(2) of
the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label
directions spacing of rod holes and trenching around a structure. A civil penalty
in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: September 5, 2006
Final Date: October 10, 2006
3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0605
Complainant:
Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 S. University St.
West Lafayette, IN 47909
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Dave Ireland
Tippecanoe Country Club
3267 N.W. Shafer Dr.
PO Box 866
Monticello, IN 47960
574-583-9977
Certified Applicator
1. On August 21, 2006, at about 10:00am, I observed Mr. Ireland making an application of
what appeared to be some sort of pesticide to what I believed to be #15 green at the above
named facility.
2. I could see that Mr. Ireland was wearing a short sleeved shirt, no gloves or protective
eyewear at the time of this application (see figure one).
Figure 1
3. I identified myself to Mr. Ireland and conducted an inspection of the Tippecanoe Country
Club facility. During the inspection Mr. Ireland advised that he had been making an
application of Emerald Fungicide (EPA Reg. #7969-196) active ingredient boscalid and
Sevin Brand SL Carbaryl Insecticide (EPA Reg. #432-1227-10404) active ingredient
carbaryl.
4. The label for Emerald Fungicide states, “Applicators and other handlers must wear
protective eyewear (goggles, face shield or safety glasses) long-sleeved shirt and long
pants, chemical resistant gloves and shoes plus socks.” The label for Sevin Brand SL
states, “Applicators and other handlers must wear long-sleeved shirt and long pants,
1
waterproof gloves, shoes plus socks, and chemical resistant headgear for overhead
exposure.”
Kevin W. Neal
Pesticide Investigator
Date: August 21, 2006
DISPOSITION: Dave Ireland and Tippecanoe Country Club were cited for violation of
section 14(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label
directions regarding the use of personal protective equipment. A civil penalty in the amount
of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: August 22, 2006
Final Date: September 28, 2006
2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0626
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 South University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
Applicator:
Mike Cummins
Ben Shull
Outdoor Estate Management
619 E. Dupont Road, Suite 227
Ft. Wayne, IN 46825
Unlicensed
Certified Applicator
1.
On 8-29-2006, I observed an Outdoor Estate Management (OEM) employee make
an application to turf at a commercial property. The applicator was operating a
riding spreader/sprayer while wearing long pants and a short-sleeved shirt.
2.
After the application, I spoke with the applicator, Mike Cummins, and asked to
see his applicator credential. Mr. Cummins stated he was a registered technician
but did not have his credential with him. Mr. Cummins was applying fertilizer
and Millenium Ultra herbicide (EPA Reg.#228-322), active ingredients 2,4-D,
dicamba and clopyralid. I read to Mr. Cummins the personal protective
equipment (PPE) requirements on the herbicide label. The label reads, “Wear
face shield, goggles, or safety glasses and long pants, long-sleeved shirt, socks,
shoes and rubber gloves when mixing, loading or applying this product.” Mr.
Cummins had gloves and sunglasses in his truck, but was not wearing either.
OEM owner and certified applicator, Ben Shull, reportedly provides short-sleeved
shirts for employees.
3.
I phoned Mr. Shull, who stated that Mr. Cummins was not totally honest with me
during the inspection. He admitted that Mr. Cummins is not an active registered
technician. Although he has two years of lawn care experience and was licensed
while working for a previous employer, Mr. Shull stated he did not apply for Mr.
Cummins’ license after hiring him in the spring. Mr. Shull was reportedly
waiting for an ex-employee to return the study materials. OISC records indicated
Mr. Cummins does not have to re-take the exam, but could activate the license by
submitting an application and fee.
4.
I met with Mr. Shull at his office on Pion Road. Mr. Shull had prepared a
statement in which he admitted to sending Mr. Cummins to make pesticide
applications on his own over the past week. He took full responsibility for not
licensing Mr. Cummins and for failing to provide all the proper PPE. Further, he
stated he would take corrective action immediately. Mr. Shull stated the
1
application log, indicating which days Mr. Cummins made applications on his
own, was in one of the trucks, but he would fax the log to the OISC. Mr. Shull
stated he was on site with Mr. Cummins during applications until 8-23-2006.
5.
OISC later received the application log from Mr. Shull. The information
indicated Mr. Cummins made for-hire pesticide applications without proper
supervision on August 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29 for a total for five (5) days.
Andrew R. Roth
Pesticide Investigator
Date: September 13, 2006
Disposition: Mike Cummins and Outdoor Estate Management were cited for violation of
section 14(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label
directions regarding the use of personal protective equipment. A civil penalty in the
amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Mike Cummins and Outdoor Estate Management were cited for five (5) counts of
violation of section 14(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to
follow the supervision rule, specifically 355 IAC 4-2-3. A civil penalty in the amount of
$625.00 (five counts X $125.00 per count) was assessed for this violation.
The total amount of civil penalty assessed was $875.00. However, the civil penalty was
reduced to $175.00. Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Cummins cooperated
during the investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of
similar nature; no potential for damage and no restricted use products were involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: September 15, 2006
Final Date: October 10, 2006
2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0634
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 S. University St.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Business:
Front Range Environmental
2110 Wright Rd.
McHenry, IL 60050
Troy Moore
815-356-3916
1.
On September 5, 2006, an employee of Front Range Environmental was observed making a
pesticide application to a drainage ditch outside a Wal-mart in Terre Haute, Indiana. The
Office of the Indiana State Chemist records indicated that Front Range Environmental is not
a licensed business in Indiana.
2.
I questioned the applicator, Levi Cambell, as to what he was applying with his backpack
sprayer. Mr. Cambell informed me that he was applying Reward (EPA Reg. # 100-1091;
active ingredient: diquat dibromide) to the drainage ditch and retention pond for the Walmart. I spoke with the crew supervisor, Charles Howard of Front Range Environmental and
explained to him the licensing issues. Mr. Howard stated that neither he nor Mr. Cambell
were licensed or unaware of licensing requirements. Mr. Howard then contacted his
supervisor, Troy Moore. Mr. Moore informed me that he would check on the licensing
issues. Mr. Moore was informed that Front Range Environmental was to stop applying
pesticides for hire until such time that a business license is acquired. Mr. Howard was issued
a modified Stop Sale Use, or Removal Order stating this.
3.
The reward label stated the following for Personal Protective Equipment requirements for
applicators and other handlers: “Coveralls over short-sleeved shirt and short pants or
coveralls over long-sleeved shirt and long pants, waterproof gloves, and chemical-resistant
footwear plus socks.” Mr. Cambell failed to have on coveralls, gloves and eye protection
during the observed application.
Scott M. Farris
Pesticide Investigator
Date: September 19, 2006
Disposition: Front Range Environmental was cited for violation of sections 14(2) and 14(9) for
failure to follow label directions regarding the use of personal protective equipment and for applying
pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license respectively. A civil penalty
in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for these violations.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: October 2, 2006
Final Date: November 27, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0635
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist
175 S. University St.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Business:
Manager/owner:
Employee:
Arab Termite and Pest Control
Herb Duncan
Jason Railsback
655 ½ S. Buffalo Street
Warsaw, IN 46580
574-267-5888
Certified Applicator
Unlicensed
1) The Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received an anonymous complaint that Jason
Railsback had been working for Arab Termite and Pest Control. Mr. Railsback is not
certified. The complainant stated that Mr. Railsback had made pesticide applications without
on-site supervision.
2) Agent Joe Becovitz and I visited the owner, Herb Duncan, on September 13, 2006. I
explained the purpose of the visit. Mr. Duncan stated that he did indeed employ Mr.
Railsback this summer. Mr. Duncan stated that he got very busy doing perimeter pest control
treatments and did send Railsback out, on his own, to spray building perimeters. Mr. Duncan
stated that he normally worked with Railsback, but due to getting busy, he sent him out
approximately 5 days, without supervision. Mr. Duncan stated that he mixed and loaded each
sprayer before Railsback left the shop. Mr. Duncan stated that the treatments consisted of
“Maxxthor SC”, EPA Reg. #81824-5, active ingredient, bifenthrin.
3) Mr. Duncan provided a written statement, admitting that he (Duncan) did not provide
supervision to Railsback, on 5 separate days. Mr. Duncan stated that he would immediately
cease using any unlicensed people. Agent Becovitz and I explained the supervision
requirements to Mr. Duncan.
Leo A. Reed
Pesticide Investigator
Date: September 14, 2006
Disposition: Herb Duncan and Arab Termite & Pest Control were cited for five (5) counts of
violation of section 14(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-23, for failure to provide on-site supervision for a non-licensed individual. A civil penalty in the
amount of $625.00 was assessed for this violation. However, the civil penalty was reduced to
$125.00. Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Duncan cooperated during the investigation;
corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar violations; no potential for
damage and no restricted use products were involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: September 15, 2006
Final Date: October 10, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2006/0647
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 S. University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Business:
Rural King #9
207 W. Broadway
Princeton, IN 47670
812-385-4078
1.
On September 12, 2006, this office received information that the Rural King in Princeton had
2.5-gallon containers of pesticide for sale with no labels. The products allegedly only had the
name of the pesticide written in marker on the jugs.
2.
On September 14, 2006, I went to the Rural King in Princeton and looked around the store
for the products in question. I found two (2), 2.5 gallon, unlabeled containers in the lawn
care products that had “LV 400” written on the container in marker. At this point, I
contacted the store manager, Mike Deshaney, and explained to him the nature of the
complaint. Mr. Deshaney stated that he was unaware that these containers had been stocked
and understood the seriousness of selling pesticide products without proper labeling. I took a
photograph of the products (shown below) and also sampled one of the products.
Two unlabeled products as shown on shelf for sale at Rural King
Scott M. Farris
Pesticide Investigator
Date: September 19, 2006
Disposition: Rural King #9 was cited for violation of section 3(4) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for distributing a pesticide with an incomplete label. A civil penalty in the amount
of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: October 2, 2006
Final Date: November 27, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2007/0045
Complaint:
Karen Anderson
817 S. Lincoln Street
Bloomington, IN 47401
812-876-1402
Applicator:
Robert Ryan
Ron Taylor
Bob Ryan Pest Control
799 W. SR 32
Trafalgar, IN 46181
317-878-4714
Certified Supervisor
Registered Technician
1.
On October 18, 2006, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information
from Karen Anderson that her 88 year old mother, Georgette Billings, received a substandard
termite control treatment on October 5, 2006, by Bob Ryan Pest Control.
2.
On October 25, 2006, I met with Karen Anderson and Georgette Billings at Mrs. Billings’
residence in Bloomington, Indiana. I received a copy of a contract from Bob Ryan Pest
Control for a termite control treatment.
3.
On October 25, 2006, I spoke with Robert Ryan, owner of Bob Ryan Pest Control. Mr. Ryan
stated that he was not present during the application. Mr. Ryan stated Ron Taylor made the
application. Mr. Ryan stated he would send the documentation to me for the termiticide
application.
4.
On October 25, 2006, I spoke with Ron Taylor. Mr. Taylor stated he performed a perimeter
only treatment using Termidor SC. Mr. Taylor stated he rodded the exterior of most of the
structure. Mr. Taylor stated he did not make a trench around the exterior of the structure
because Mrs. Billings requested he not disturb the plant life around the house. Mr. Taylor
stated he did not have Mrs. Billings sign a disclosure form. Mr. Taylor stated he applied
Termidor SC to the soil in the coal shoot in the basement.
5.
On October 25, 2006, I obtained a composite soil sample from the exterior of the structure.
6.
The label for Termidor SC, EPA Reg. #7969-210, active ingredient fipronil, states in part for
an exterior perimeter treatment, “Apply along the exterior foundation perimeter by trenching
and rodding into the trench…”
7.
On October 27, 2006, I received a copy of a contract from Bob Ryan Pest Control for termite
control at Mrs. Billings residence and an original copy of a job order documenting six (6) of
the ten (10) required recordkeeping elements for termite control.
1
8.
The following elements did not appear on the recordkeeping documentation I received on
October 27, 2006 from Bob Ryan Pest Control:
A.
B.
C.
D.
9.
Dimensions of the structure with depth-to-footer
EPA registration number for Termidor SC
Dilution rate
Copy of the termite control customer disclosure form
I determined that 232.8 gallons of Termidor SC Use dilution should have been applied to Mrs.
Billings’s residence.
126 linear feet x 4 gallons/10 linear feet (.4) x 4 feet of depth = 201.6 gallons of use
dilution
23 linear feet (garage) x 4 gallons/10 linear feet (.4) x 1 foot of depth = 9.2 gallons of
use dilution
55 linear feet (interior coal shoot) x 4 gallons/ 10 linear feet (.4) x 1 foot of depth = 22
gallons
Total = 232.8 gallons
10. The Termite control job order that I received from Bob Ryan Pest Control documented that
140 gallons of use dilution were used to treat the structure.
11. On November 8, 2006, OISC’s residue lab reported a confirmation of fipronil in the
composite soil sample I obtained from the exterior of Mrs. Billings’s residence.
Paul J. Kelley
Pesticide Investigator
Date: November 14, 2006
Disposition: Robert Ryan and Bob Ryan Pest Control were warned for violation of section 14(6) of
the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow the rules regarding termite control
application records, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2(1).
Robert Ryan, Ron Taylor and Bob Ryan Pest Control were cited for violation of section 14(2) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding trenching.
Robert Ryan, Ron Taylor and Bob Ryan Pest Control were cited for violation of section 14(2) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions for only applying
approximately 60% of the required label-directed volume of termiticide. A civil penalty in the amount
of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: November 16, 2006
Final Date: December 12, 2006
2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2007/0050
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 S. University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Brian Klemme
Greenvision, LLC
5250 N. 150 W.
West Lafayette, IN 47906
765-429-4900
Unlicensed
1. On October 24, 2006, the OISC became aware of a situation wherein the above named
company may have been in the business of applying pesticides to the property of others
for hire without having the proper licensing and certifications.
2. According to OISC records, Greenvision, LLC was licensed in 2005 and had a certified
applicator and neither the business license nor the certified applicator’s certification was
renewed for 2006.
3. On October 31, 2006, I spoke with Mr. Klemme who advised that Greenvision, LLC did
in fact make pesticide applications in 2006 without having the proper credentials. He
provided me with records which indicated that on three dates in 2006, Greenvision
applied or contracted to apply a pre-emergent weed control for hire.
4. The dates are January 30, 2006; March 20, 2006 and April 28, 2006.
5. On January 30, 2006, Greenvision contracted with Sandra Rossie of 3514 Woodfield,
West Lafayette, Indiana and Bill Jaffe of P.O. Box 6002, Lafayette, Indiana.
6. On March 20, 2006, Greenvision contracted with Regency Place of Lafayette at 300
Windy Hill Drive, Lafayette, Indiana.
7. On April 28, 2006, Greenvision applied pre-emergent weed control to 910 King St., 1012
Tuscany Court, 727 Wellington Court and 412, 414, 418, 420, 601 and 603 Farrington
Avenue, Lafayette, Indiana.
Kevin W. Neal
Pesticide Investigator
Date: November 10, 2006
DISPOSITION: Brian Klemme and Greenvision, LLC were cited for three (3) counts of
violation of section 14(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying
pesticides for hire or professing to be in the business of applying pesticides for hire without
having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $750.00 was
assessed for this violation. However, the civil penalty was reduced to $300.00.
Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Klemme cooperated during the investigation;
there was no previous history of similar nature; no potential for damage and no restricted use
products were involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: November 15, 2006
Final Date: December 12, 2006
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2007/0086
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 S. University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Andy Perdue
Natural Edge
P.O. Box 3112
West Lafayette, IN 47996
765-532-0069
Unlicensed
1. On October 31, 2006, the OISC became aware of the possibility that Natural Edge and Andy
Perdue may have been in the business of applying pesticides for hire on the property of others
without having the proper licensing and credentials.
2. According to OISC records, Mr. Perdue was a certified applicator at one time but failed to
renew that certification for 2006 and that Natural Edge, the company he now operates, does
not nor has it ever had a pesticide business license.
3. On November 6, 2006, I met with Mr. Perdue who advised and provided in a written
statement, that after leaving Greenvision LLC in the fall of 2005, he began his own company
called Natural Edge. He stated that he was under the impression that since he was applying a
granular herbicide, he did not need the certification. However, he did acknowledge that he
did make pre-emergent weed control applications to several properties in early March of
2006.
4. Mr. Perdue provided me with documentation of the pre-emergent applications which
indicated that the applications were made to six (6) different locations in and around the
Lafayette/West Lafayette area. Mr. Perdue stated that they were all done on the same day;
however he does not know what day it would have been exactly.
Kevin W. Neal
Pesticide Investigator
Date: November 10, 2006
DISPOSITION: Andy Perdue and Natural Edge were cited for violation of section 14(9) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana
pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: November 15, 2006
Final Date: December 12, 2006