case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist

Transcription

A Summary of Cases
3/28/2016
2015/0002
Disposition:
A. David McCrary and McCrary Home Inspection were cited for three (3) counts of violation of
section 65(9)(B) for making a wood destroying pest inspection for hire without the required
business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00 per count) was
assessed. However, the civil penalty was held in abeyance and will not be assessed provided Mr.
McCrary obtains the necessary license within one hundred and eighty (180) days of receipt of
this notice.
B. David McCrary failed to obtain his license within the one hundred and eighty (180) days. The
civil penalty in the amount of $750.00 was reassessed.
C. On January 26, 2016, I spoke with David McCrary regarding this investigation. He stated he
intended to pay the civil penalty but was in the process of dealing with the Veterans
Administration regarding an injury he received during his military tour and hasn’t worked for
over a year. He requested leniency on the civil penalty.
D. The civil penalty was reduced to $187.50. Consideration was given to the fact he cooperated
during the investigation; there was no previous history of similar nature and a good-faith
effort to comply.
2015/0445
Disposition:
A. Legacy Hills Golf Club and Pete Magnuson were cited for three (3) counts of violation of
section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-2,
for applying pesticides for hire without having the proper pesticide certification. A civil
penalty in the amount of $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the
$750.00 civil penalty was held in abeyance until April 15, 2015, and will not be levied
provided Mr. Magnuson becomes properly certified. Consideration was given to the fact Mr.
Magnuson cooperated during the investigation. Compliance assistance was rendered for the
record keeping violations.
B. As of August 19, 2015, Mr. Magnuson had not become properly certified. The full amount
of the $750.00 civil penalty was assessed.
C. As of February 24, 2016, Legacy Hills Golf Club had not paid the civil penalty. The case
was forwarded to collections.
2015/0479
DISPOSITION: This case was forwarded to US EPA C.I.D. for review.
2015/0880
DISPOSITION: Ceres Solutions was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding open
dumping of pesticide waste. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for
this violation.
2015/0917
Disposition: Ray Gash was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding rate and
application of termiticide volume. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this was his second violation of
similar nature. See case number 2014/1253.
2015/0933
DISPOSITION: Showcase Lawn Care and Jordan Vanwye were cited for one (1) count
of violation of section 65(9)(A) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for
professing to be in the business of applying pesticides/fertilizers for hire without having
an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was
assessed for this violation.
2015/0935
DISPOSITION: Juday Creek Golf Course was cited for two (2) counts of violation of
section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 115-2, for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a certified applicator. A civil
penalty in the amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However,
the civil penalty was reduced to $350.00. Consideration was given to the fact Juday
Creek Golf Course cooperated during the investigation and no restricted pesticides were
involved.
2015/1048
DISPOSITION:
A. Ray Gunthorp was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding allowing the pesticide off the
target site.
B. Ray Gunthorp was cited for violation of section 65(5) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for operating in a careless and negligent manner by intentionally trying to
kill chickens with a pesticide. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for
these violations.
C. On February 3, 2016, an informal conference was held at the home of Ray Gunthorp. Mr.
Gunthorp stated he wanted to clarify some things in the case summary.
a. The address on the summary was wrong. It should be 0810 N. 925 E. I told him I would
make the change.
b. He stated he only shot chickens that were on his side of the property line.
c. He stated he only put the insecticide down to kill bugs that feed on corn since he was
getting to re-plant and had no intention of killing chickens. He shot to kill chickens but
did not intend the pesticide to kill chickens.
d. He stated a Dow representative told him the chickens could have tracked back 132 ppm of
chlorpyrifos onto Greg’s side of the fence.
e. He stated his brother Greg had access to his corn planter and could have placed the
insecticide himself. Ray stated he found the lid unlatched on the corn planter when he
knows for certain he latched the lid.
f. He stated his brother Greg, husband of Lei, has been feuding with him. He stated Greg
swept the insecticide onto his own property just to try and get Ray in trouble. See
photograph #6.
Photograph #6 Greg Gunthorp Sweeping
g. He stated his father, Theodore Gunthorp, has made the comment that “Greg is f*****g us
all the time!”
D. I advised Ray Gunthorp I would add his comments to the summary and re-evaluate.
E. On February 11, 2016, Ray Gunthorp sent an email with further explanation of his side of the
story. His comments were added to the case file.
2015/1096
DISPOSITION: Rural King was cited for violation of section 57(5) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for distributing a pesticide that is misbranded. A civil penalty
in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
2015/1219
DISPOSITION:
A. Chris Cioroianu was cited for thirteen (13) counts of violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-2, for applying pesticides to a
golf course without having a certified applicator. A civil penalty in the amount of $3,250.00
(13 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was reduced to
$2,275.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Cioroianu cooperated during the
investigation and no restricted use pesticides were involved.
B. On November 16, 2015, an informal conference was held at Turkey Creek Golf
Course. Mr. Cioroianu stated that they were a city course and that the mailings don’t
necessarily go to him. He stated Thomas Zimmerman has passed his Core exam but had
not applied for the license. He stated he has since made arrangements for all
communications from the Office of Indiana State Chemist to go through him.
C. The civil penalty was reduced to $487.50. Consideration was given to the fact Mr.
Cioroianu cooperated during the investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no
previous history of similar nature; no potential for damage; a good faith effort to comply
and no restricted use pesticides were involved
2015/1226
Disposition: Steve Klima was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding label directed
application rates. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed for this
violation. However, the civil penalty was reduced to $750.00. Consideration was given to
the fact Mr. Klima cooperated during the investigation. Consideration was also given to
the fact this was his third violation of similar nature. See case numbers 2010/0759 and
2010/0761.
2015/1229
DISPOSITION: Scott Michael Morgan was cited for three (3) violations of section 65(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 $750.00 (3
counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was reduced to
$112.50. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Morgan cooperated during the
investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar nature
and a good-faith effort to comply.
2015/1267
DISPOSITION: Kenneth Roe was cited for nine (9) counts of violation of section 65(9)
of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides/fertilizers for
hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount
of $2,250.00 (9 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was
reduced to $225.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Roe cooperated during the
investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar nature
and a good faith effort to comply.
2015/1307
DISPOSITION: Peter Richardson was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates.
A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
2015/1338
DISPOSITION: Rural King was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding the secure placement
of a rodenticide. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact there was potential for human harm. As of March 9,
2016, Rural King had not paid the civil penalty. The case was forwarded to collections.
2015/1379
DISPOSITION: Ray Gash was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding the use
of personal protective equipment.
Ray Gash was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding allowing people in the
treated area before the spray has dried. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was
assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact there was potential for
human harm.
Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding application rates. A civil
penalty in the amount of $500.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was
given to the fact this was his second violation of similar nature. See case number
2014/1253.
Application Law for making false or fraudulent records, invoices, or reports. As a result
of this citation as well as the above citations, in addition to the $750.00 civil penalty, all
pesticide certifications and licenses of Ray Gash; and business license of R & A Termite
& Pest Control, were revoked.
2016/0246
Disposition: Matt Smith was cited for three (3) counts of violation of section 65(6) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-2-3, for failure to
provide on-site supervision for a non-licensed employee. A civil penalty in the amount of
$375.00 (3 counts x $125.00 per count) was assessed.
2016/0252
Disposition: Rural King was cited for violation of section 57(4) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for offering for sale a pesticide a product that did not have a label with
the required information. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed. As of
March 9, 2016, Rural King had not paid the civil penalty. The case was forwarded to
collections.
2016/0395
DISPOSITION: Dan Collester was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directed application rates. A
civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
2016/0404
DISPOSITION: Garmon Corporation was cited for two (2) violations of section 57(1) of
the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for distributing pesticides not registered in the
state of Indiana. A civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count)
was assessed.
2016/0433
DISPOSITION:
A. Travis Crane was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application
Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates. Based on the egregiousness of the
violation by applying less than 50% of a by-the-label treatment, the technician registration issued
to Travis Crane was revoked.
B. Dustin Banning was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates. A civil penalty in the
amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Based on the egregiousness of the violation
by applying less than 50% of a by-the-label treatment, the applicator certification issued to
Dustin Banning was modified to prohibit supervision of registered technicians in the
performance of termiticide applications.
C. In addition, the business license issued to Terminix of Bloomington, Indiana was modified to
prohibit preconstruction termite control treatments.
D. At the request of Terminix, an informal conference was held on January 11, 2016, at the Terminix
branch in Bloomington. Representing Terminix were Tony Bohnert, Dustin Banning and Russell
May. Representing OISC were Jay Kelley and George Saxton.
E. During the conference, Terminix representatives posited that:
a. This was a corporate sale with little paperwork and no diagram;
b. This was registered technician Travis Crane’s first solo pretreat since he has only been
with the company 4 or 5 months so he was put in a situation in which he should not have
been;
c. The original certified supervisor, Rich Austra, was on vacation so certified applicator
Dustin Banning was filling in;
d. Dustin did not inspect the site before the treatment;
e. The soil was compacted over 99% and the termiticide was puddling;
f. The inside vertical depth-to-footer was actually one foot and the footer itself was 2.6 feet
deep, although they admitted there was no inside vertical treatment performed.
g. The top of the footing was exposed on the inside vertical and a 2010 label was used that
states in part, “Rod holes should not extend below the top of the footing.”
F. OISC representatives posited that: a. Since this was a corporate sale with no diagram and new
employee Travis Crane’s first solo treatment, even more reason a site visit should have been
performed by the supervising certified applicator;
b. Even though there was considerable soil compaction, allowing some of the
chemical to soak into the soil and returning a few minutes later to finish would
have been a viable option.
c. Registered technician Travis Crane may be less culpable than indicated during the
original investigation.
G. In order to remedy the discrepancies in this treatment, Terminix stated they would: a. Extend
the warranty to Chick-Fil-A;
b. Site visit and diagram treatment areas when they receive a treatment order from
corporate;
c. Send Travis Crane back through classroom and field training;
d. Send Dustin Banning through the next 7b training session at Purdue.
H. It should be noted that after review of the 2010 label supplied by Terminix, the label also
states in part, “When the top of the footing is exposed, the applicator must treat the soil
adjacent to the footing to a depth not to exceed the bottom
I. Based on information received at the informal conference, it was determined that: a. The civil
penalty in the amount of $250.00 would still be assessed;
b. The technician registration of Travis Crane would not be revoked;
c. The certification of Dustin Banning would be modified to prohibit supervision of
registered technicians until such time as he attends the 7b training program at
Purdue;
d. The business license of Terminix of Bloomington will be modified to require all
preconstruction termite control treatments to be performed by fully certified
individuals;
e. The warranty for Chick-Fil-A would be extended to seven (7) years;
2016/0481
DISPOSITION: Arrow Termite & Pest Control was cited for violation of section 65(6)
of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2-(6), for
failure to notify OISC in advance of the preconstruction termite control treatment. A civil
penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
2016/0491
DISPOSITION: Helena Chemical Company Inc. was warned for violation of section
57(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for distributing a pesticide in violation of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by distributing a
pesticide in a container that had not been pressure tested and did not contain proper
identification. Consideration was given to the fact this was their first violation of similar
nature.
Helena Chemical Company was cited for violation of section 44 of the Indiana
Commercial Fertilizer Law, specifically 355 IAC 7-3-4, for failure to properly supervise
an uncertified fertilizer applicator. A civil penalty in the amount of $125.00 was assessed
for this violation.
2016/0517
DISPOSITION: Brad Allen was cited for thirty-two (32) counts of violation of section
65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for
failure to keep all mandatory record keeping elements. A civil penalty in the amount of
$8,000.00 (32 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was
reduced to $800.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Allen cooperated during the
inspection; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar nature;
no potential for damage; a good-faith effort to comply and no restricted use pesticides
were involved. In addition, $500.00 was held in abeyance and will not be assessed
provided Mr. Allen commits no further violations of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for two years from finalization of this investigation.
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/0002
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 S. University Street
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
765-494-1585
Respondent:
McCrary Home Inspection
2669 S 775 E
Oakland City, IN 47660
David McCrary
812-782-4232
Unlicensed Business
Unlicensed Category 12 Inspector
1. On October 1, 2014, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received an anonymous complaint
alleging David McCrary of McCrary Home Inspection had performed an unlicensed Wood Destroying
Insect (WDI) inspection at a home located at 619 E. Cherry Street in Boonville, Indiana, on September
23, 2014. A copy of the WDI inspection report was included in the complaint.
2. On October 6, 2014, I met with David McCrary at his business location. Mr. McCrary stated he had
recently performed a WDI inspection at the address listed above, but was unaware he was required to
have a Category 12 license to perform these types of inspections. Mr. McCrary indicated the realtor
had handed him the WDI form and told him he needed to fill it out as part of his inspection. Mr.
McCrary also informed me he had completed two (2) other WDI inspections at the below addresses:
•
•
406 N Prince, Princeton, Indiana, 47670
701 S. Race St., Princeton, Indiana, 47670
3. I discussed with Mr. McCrary the requirements for getting a Category 12 license and he indicated he
wanted to become licensed so he could complete these inspections in the future. I also issued Mr.
McCrary an Action Order to cease any further WDI inspections until he received the required licensing.
Scott M. Farris
Investigator
Date: October 7, 2014
Disposition:
A. David McCrary and McCrary Home Inspection were cited for three (3) counts of violation of
section 65(9)(B) for making a wood destroying pest inspection for hire without the required
business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00 per count) was
assessed. However, the civil penalty was held in abeyance and will not be assessed provided Mr.
McCrary obtains the necessary license within one hundred and eighty (180) days of receipt of this
notice.
B. David McCrary failed to obtain his license within the one hundred and eighty (180) days. The civil
penalty in the amount of $750.00 was reassessed.
Page 1 of 2
C. On January 26, 2016, I spoke with David McCrary regarding this investigation. He stated he
intended to pay the civil penalty but was in the process of dealing with the Veterans Administration
regarding an injury he received during his military tour and hasn’t worked for over a year. He
requested leniency on the civil penalty.
D. The civil penalty was reduced to $187.50. Consideration was given to the fact he cooperated
during the investigation; there was no previous history of similar nature and a good-faith effort to
comply.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: January 26, 2016
Final Date: February 24, 2016
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/0445
Complainant:
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
(765) 495-1585
Respondent:
Legacy Hills Golf Club
Pete Magnuson
299 W. Johnson Road
Laporte, Indiana 46350
(219) 324-4777
Involved others:
Superintendent
Arnold J. Sundling
Harrell’s LLC
3851 Perry Blvd
Whitestown, IN. 46075
(800) 966-1987
Certified Applicator
1. On Monday January 5, 2015, I, Agent Brian Baker of OISC, conducted an inspection of the
pesticide use program at the Legacy Hills Golf Club. The following areas were covered in the
inspection:
•
•
•
•
•
Certification and Licensing
Supervision
Records Keeping
Storage
Disposal
2. I met with Pete Magnuson, the golf course Superintendent. I identified myself verbally and with
OISC credentials. I stated my purpose and issued a Notice of Inspection. Mr. Magnuson told me he
hires out all his turf work to Harrell’s LLC except for the greens. Mr. Magnuson told me he made
three pesticide spray applications to his greens in 2014 and only after that discovered he had the
wrong license with OISC. Mr. Magnuson told me he had a “3A” license with OISC. When I
checked Mr. Magnuson’s license status I discovered he took and passed his 3A test but failed to
file his paperwork and pay his licensing fee.
•
Mr. Magnuson is “unlicensed” at this time.
3. I checked all the records Mr. Magnuson had on hand. There was only one year’s record on hand.
Mr. Magnuson told me he took over the applications and records keeping just last year and added
the person before him was not keeping the proper record. The records provided by the vendor were
complete. The records which Mr. Magnuson kept on the three pesticide spray applications he made
were complete except for:
Page 1 of 3
•
•
•
The name or address of the golf course
Manufacturer name of the pesticides applied
OISC license number of the person responsible for the applications.
I told Mr. Magnuson not to make any more pesticide applications until he is properly licensed. I
showed Mr. Magnuson how to use the National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (N.P.I.R.S)
on the OISC website so he could correct his record deficiencies.
4. I discussed supervision with Mr. Magnuson. I inspected Mr. Magnuson’s pesticide storage. The
storage met the OISC standards. I covered disposal and found Mr. Magnuson was following all
container and rinsate disposal procedures required by OISC.
5. Mr. Magnuson provided the application records for the three unlicensed pesticide spray applications
he made in 2014. The records are attached to the case file. The following is a synopsis of those
pesticide applications:
• April 18, 2014 6am.
All Greens treated with Proxy EPA Reg# 432-1230, active ingredient= ethephon, Primo
Max EPA Reg# 100-937, active ingredient= trinexapac-ethyl 11.3%, Instrata EPA Reg#
100-1231, active ingredient=fludioxonil 1.2%, chlorothalonil 29.9%, propiconazole 4.7%.
• November 13, 2014 10 am.
All Greens treated with Daconil Acrion, EPA Reg# 100-1364, active
ingredient=acibenzolar-s-methyl .11%, chlorothalonil 53.94%, Headway EPA Reg# 1001216, active ingredient=propiconazole 9.54%, azoxystrobin 5.73% Cavalier EPA Reg#
1001-69, active ingredient=thiophanate-methyl 41.25% Concert EPA Reg# 100-1192,
active ingredient=chlorothalonil 38.5%, propiconazole 2.9%
• November 17, 2014, 10am.
All Greens treated with Instrata EPA Reg# 100-1231.active ingredient=fludioxonil 1.2%,
chlorothalonil 29.9%, propiconazole 4.7%.
6. On January 5th, 2015, I conducted an inspection of the pesticides spray application records and
found the three deficiencies outlined in paragraph 3 of this report. Between the dates April 18, 2014
and November 17, 2014, Mr. Pete Magnuson made three unlicensed pesticides spray applications to
the golf course turf at Legacy Hills Golf Club. The details of those pesticide spray applications are
outlined in paragraph 5 of this report.
Brian P. Baker
Pesticide Investigator
Date: January 7, 2015
Disposition:
A. Legacy Hills Golf Club and Pete Magnuson were cited for three (3) counts of violation of
section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-2,
for applying pesticides for hire without having the proper pesticide certification. A civil
penalty in the amount of $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the
Page 2 of 3
$750.00 civil penalty was held in abeyance until April 15, 2015, and will not be levied
provided Mr. Magnuson becomes properly certified. Consideration was given to the fact Mr.
Magnuson cooperated during the investigation. Compliance assistance was rendered for the
record keeping violations.
B. As of August 19, 2015, Mr. Magnuson had not become properly certified. The full amount of
the $750.00 civil penalty was assessed.
C. As of February 24, 2016, Legacy Hills Golf Club had not paid the civil penalty. The case was
forwarded to collections.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: August 19, 2015
Page 3 of 3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/0479
Complainant:
David McMillan
505 Plain Street
LaPorte, Indiana 46350
(219) 344-7390
Respondent:
Dipen Patel
Ronald Forsythe
Knights Inn
201 W. Kieffer Road
Michigan City, Indiana 46360
(989) 889-0909
Business Owner
Manager
1. On January 23, 2015, the complainant called the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) and
stated he had been exposed to the pesticide dichlorvos and had become ill. He stated he used
to work at the Knights Inn listed above and the owner, Mr. Dipen Patel, had him apply an
insecticide in the rooms for roaches and bed bugs. Mr. McMillan stated he had been spraying
walls and ceilings and he had been “drenched” in the chemical. Mr. McMillan stated Mr. Patel
advised him, he (Patel) owned a farm in India and this is what he used to control pests. Mr.
McMillan has since quit working at the hotel. Another hotel employee, “Julie”, has also
allegedly used the dichlorvos pesticide at the hotel as well. Mr. McMillan stated he had an
empty pesticide container with him which was used at the hotel. Mr. McMillan said the
pesticide used was “UPL Doom”, a pesticide product from United Phosphorus Limited. Mr.
McMillan was advised by George Saxton, OISC Compliance Officer, to contact his physician
if he is ill from the pesticide exposure.
2. On January 25, 2015, I, Agent Brian Baker with OISC, made telephone contact with the
complainant, Mr. McMillan. I set a meeting with Mr. McMillan for Monday morning at 10am
at Denny’s restaurant in Michigan City, Indiana. On Monday January 26, 2015, at 10:30am, I
met with Mr. McMillan at the Denny’s restaurant located at 5800 S. Franklin Street in
Michigan City, Indiana. I identified myself to Mr. McMillan verbally and with OISC
credentials and asked him to take me through his complaint verbally before recording it on a
digital recorder.
3. Mr. McMillan told me he was employed as the Manager and Maintenance Manager for the
Knights Inn Michigan City location from approximately October of 2013 until approximately
November of 2014. Mr. McMillan gave a brief description of his duties and among those
duties was pest control for the Knights Inn hotel. Mr. McMillan identified his employer as Mr.
Dipen Patel. Mr. McMillan told me Mr. Patel also owned or shared ownership of another
business, the Super 8 hotel in Howe, In. Mr. McMillan told me Mr. Patel’s chief company is
Trimurti Hospitality and both locations, the Knights Inn and Super 8, are a part of Trimurti
Hospitality.
Page 1 of 11
4. Mr. McMillan alleged that somewhere in the time frame of Jan-Feb. of 2014, Mr. Patel
supplied him with a liquid pesticide labeled as;
•
“Doom” active ingredient dichlorvos 76%.
The Doom product was in a small 6-8 ounce (unknown for sure due to the non-English script
on the bottle) plastic container which had some labeling on it. The manufacturer is United
Phosphorus Limited of Mumbai, India (Fig. 1-5). Mr. Patel allegedly told Mr. McMillan he
used the product to control pests on his farm in India. Mr. McMillan told me he was
instructed to mix the liquid contents with water and spray it. I asked Mr. McMillan how much
water he mixed with the Doom product. Mr. McMillan told me the first time he used it, he
only mixed it with approximately 32-36 ounces in what he described as a general household
hand held plastic spray bottle. Mr. McMillan went on to say he used the first mixture as a spot
spray and it worked so well he started using it in a plastic one gallon garden type sprayer and
when it broke from use, he started mixing it with two gallons of water in a two gallon stainless
steel pump sprayer. Mr. McMillan told me Mr. Patel would supply the Doom product to him
as needed or leave a supply of it on a closet shelf in room 103. Mr. McMillan told me he used
the Doom pesticide in just about every room at the Knights Inn and if there was a specific
infestation, he was told to spray everything including walls ceilings, bed linen, mattresses, and
curtains. Mr. McMillan remembered the heaviest concentration of Doom he applied in rooms
441 and 442. Mr. McMillan told me he remembered room 441 because when he sprayed the
wood trim around the ceiling, roaches came “pouring out”. Mr. McMillan described room 442
as being “just as bad”.
•
•
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Figures 1-2 are the empty bottle of Doom pesticide showing the container labeling.
Figure 3 is the bottom of the Doom pesticide bottle showing a lot number and two dates.
5. Mr. McMillan had the empty container seen in figures 1-5 and he turned it over to me as
evidence. A pesticide sample collection report was filled out and the container was turned
into the OISC formulation laboratory for analysis.
6. I contacted the La Porte County Health Department and was directed to Environmental
Health/Food Specialist, Patty Nocek. I identified myself to Ms. Nocek and briefed her on this
investigation. I told Ms. Nocek I intended to confront Mr. Patel with the allegation. Ms.
Nocek told me she would meet me at the Knights Inn and assist me in every way she could
because of the potential human health threat this case posed.
7. I met Ms. Nocek at the Knights Inn. Ms. Nocek identified herself to a member of
management and I identified myself with OISC credentials and stated the purpose for our
visit. Within a few minutes, two men walked into the office and identified themselves as
Dipen Patel, the owner of the Knights Inn, and Ronald Forsythe, the Manager of the Knights
Page 2 of 11
Inn. I verbally and with OISC credentials identified myself to both men. I stated the purpose
for my visit. A Notice of Inspection was issued to Mr. Patel. I informed Mr. Patel what I had
been told by David McMillan. Mr. Patel denied ever supplying an unregistered pesticide
product to Mr. McMillan. Mr. Patel said that he only used pesticides which he purchases on
the internet. Mr. Patel said he would cooperate with OISC and the Health Department. Mr.
Patel told me that David McMillan has been harassing him and stalking him since he was
terminated earlier in the month. Mr. Patel said this was a case of retribution. Mr. Patel told
me if I found any unlawful pesticide on his property, it was because Mr. McMillan put it
there without his knowledge or permission. I asked Mr. Patel to allow me into room 103 to
check for stored pesticides. Mr. Patel opened the room and I checked the closet for stored
pesticides and did not find any. I asked Mr. Patel if rooms 441 and 442 were occupied and he
said they were not. I asked for access to both rooms and was granted the same. I swabbed the
ceiling trim in room 441 with an acetone swab which I marked as FS-1. I swabbed the
baseboard in room 442 with an acetone swab which I marked as FS-2.
8. I told Mr. Patel the swabs I took would be turned into the OISC Residue Laboratory for
analysis. I told Mr. Patel I would let him know what the results were as soon as I had them.
Mr. Patel asked me what he needed to do for clean-up. I told Mr. Patel he would need to take
the direction of Mrs. Nocek for clean-up. I told Mr. Patel and Mr. Forsythe not to make any
attempt to clean-up at this time because they could potentially do far more harm than good.
Mrs. Nocek asked Mr. Patel to voluntarily keep all persons out of rooms 441 and 442. Mr.
Patel agreed. I asked Mr. Patel to take me where he stored his pesticide products. Mr. Patel
took me to his office bathroom where he stored a 14.8 ounce container of Tempo Ultra WP,
EPA Reg. #432-1304, active ingredient b-cyfluthrin 10%. (fig. 5-6). Mr. Patel also provided
an invoice for the Tempo, Drione Dust and a bulb duster (fig. 4). I asked Mr. Patel where he
kept his pesticide sprayer and he deferred to Mr. Forsythe. Mr. Forsythe told me he looked
for a sprayer but could not find one on the premises.
Fig. 4
•
•
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Figure 4 is an invoice from “Do My Own Pest Control.com”.
Figure 5-6 are of a 14.8 ounce container of Tempo Ultra WP, EPA Reg. #432-1304,
active ingredient b-cyfluthrin.
9. Before leaving, I showed Mr. Patel the pictures I had taken of the “U.P.L. Doom” container
and asked if that changed anything he told me so far. Mr. Patel looked at the photos (Figs. 15) and told me he had never seen that before.
10. On Tuesday, January 27th, 2015, I turned the two swabs which I took at the Knights Inn to the
OISC Residue Laboratory for analysis. Later that day, I received an e-mail from the OISC
Laboratory which indicated the two swabs tested positive for the active ingredient
“dichlorvos”. I notified Ms. Nocek of the positive results and she notified Mr. Patel by phone
Page 3 of 11
and also by letter. I placed a phone call to Mr. Patel to let him know I intended to bring a team
of personnel to the Knights Inn on Monday February 2nd, 2015, to swab each room. I asked
Mr. Patel how many rooms he had and he responded with 90. I asked Mr. Patel if he shared
ownership in the Super 8 motel in Howe, Indiana and he advised me he did not have anything
to do with that business. I asked Mr. Patel if Trimurti Hospitality owned the Super 8 in Howe,
Indiana and he told me they did not. I learned later the Super 8 was managed by Mr. Patel’s
brother, Mr. Behavin Patel (OISC Case 2015/0484). I also learned Mr. Behavin Patel was not
a part of Trimurti Hospitality.
11. The initial day scheduled for the swabbing of all the rooms at the Knights Inn and Super 8 had
to be postponed due to a winter storm. The second date set for the swabbing initiative was
Thursday February 5, 2015.
12. On Thursday February 5, 2015, the following OISC personnel went to the Knights Inn located
in Michigan City Indiana:
• Brian Baker-OISC Investigator
• Kevin Neal-OISC Investigator
• Scott Farris-OISC Investigator
• Trish Waller-OISC Inspector
• Douglas Felix-OISC Residue Laboratory Technician
• Benjamin Slentz-OISC Residue Laboratory Analyst
We arrived at the Knights Inn between 10:30 and 11:00 am. A Notice of Inspection was
provided to Mr. Dipen Patel. I provided a briefing for all the personnel present which
included:
• the hotel employees assigned to assist with access to the rooms;
• a Michigan City Police Officer assigned on a stand-by detail;
• personnel from the La Porte County Health Department;
• officials from the Michigan City Sanitary District; and,
• officials from the Michigan City Code Enforcement Department.
The three OISC personnel assisting with the swabbing were each teamed up and supervised
by an OISC Pesticide Investigator. A total of two swabs were taken in each room, one
10cm x 10cm template swab and one free swab (no template and no specific area sampled).
The Investigators in each team controlled the supply of swabbing supplies and the labeling
and recording of completed swab samples.
13. The Knights Inn is made up of four buildings with 100, 200, 300 and 400 series numbers. The
three teams of two personnel took one template swab and one free swab sample in each room.
The following is a break-down of the swabs taken by team.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 22 rooms in building 100: Kevin Neal/Trish Waller
The 26 rooms in building 200: Scott Farris/Ben Slentz
The 23 rooms in building 400: Brian Baker/Doug Felix
The 12 rooms from 301 thru 312 and a maintenance workshop: Scott Farris/Ben
Slentz
The 11 rooms from 330 thru 340 and room 342: Kevin Neal/Trish Waller.
The room marked 341: Brian Baker /Doug Felix.
Page 4 of 11
14. When all of the swab samples were completed at the Knights Inn, the large over-pack bags
containing the individual sealed swab sample containers were sealed with a zip tie. All of
the individual chain of custody forms were completed and signed over to Agent Kevin Neal.
Agent Neal transported the swabs to the OISC residue laboratory where they were turned in
for analysis.
15. On Wednesday February 11, 2015, at 10:30am, I met with David McMillan at the Denny’s
restaurant in Michigan City Indiana. I asked David if he had copies of any of his medical
records. Mr. McMillan told me that he would get them as soon as he could. I asked Mr.
McMillan if he knew the names of the persons who make up Trimurti Hospitality. Mr.
McMillan did not know. Mr. McMillan told me he had come across another empty bottle of
“Doom” insecticide. I told Mr. McMillan to make sure it was secured in a safe place and it
would be collected either by me or U.S. EPA Criminal Investigators. I let Mr. McMillan
know that I had been in contact with the U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division (CID)
and they were being briefed as this case developed. I told Mr. McMillan there was a
possibility he would be contacted by U.S. EPA CID personnel at some point in the future.
16. After speaking to Mr. McMillan, I went to the Knights Inn and made contact with Mr. Dipen
Patel. I asked Mr. Patel if he would explain who it was that made up Trimurti Hospitality
and what properties they owned. I also asked who owned the Super 8 motel in Howe,
Indiana that his brother Bhavin Patel managed. Mr. Dipen Patel told me Trimurti Hospitality
was made up of himself and two “sleeping partners”. I asked for names addresses and phone
numbers for his partners. Mr. Patel provided the following names only and a promise of a
follow up e-mail with the addresses and phone contact information.
• Bhrat Patel
• Hitesh Patel
As I continued speaking to Mr. Dipen Patel, a middle age man came into his office and sat
down next to me. I continued with Mr. Patel by asking who owned the Super 8 motel in
Howe, Indiana. Mr. Dipen Patel told me it was owned by Jatin Patel and two of his (Jatin’s)
brothers. I asked who Jatin Patel was to him and he motioned with an open hand to the
gentleman who sat down next to me a few minutes earlier. Mr. Dipen Patel then introduced
Jatin Patel as his father. The two other owners of the Super 8 are Vijay Patel and Krupesh
Patel. The three men make up Howe Motel LLC. Mr. Dipen Patel asked me for the testing
results of the swabs taken at the Super 8 and the Knights Inn. I told Mr. Dipen Patel the
investigation and laboratory testing was not complete and added I would tell him the results
as soon as they were available. I asked Mr. Patel if he could tell me where the Doom
insecticide came from and he said he did not know anything about that. I pointed out to Mr.
Patel the Doom product was not available in the United States. I told Mr. Patel we spoke to
the United Phosphorus Limited Company in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania and they said the
Doom product was manufactured and distributed only in India. I pointed out to Mr. Patel
how important it was to cooperate in OISC investigations and he insisted he knew nothing
about the Doom pesticide or from where it came.
17. On Friday February 13, 2015, I received an e-mail from Mr. Bill Wales with Barnes and
Thornburg LLP. Mr. Wales identified himself as Legal Counsel for his client, Mr. Dipen
Patel. Mr. Wales asked that I call him. Before I could call Mr. Wales, he called me on
Monday February 16, 2015. Mr. Wales told me his client, Mr. Dipen Patel, wished to
Page 5 of 11
cooperate and reveal the source of supply for the dichlorvos pesticide. Mr. Wales said his
client Mr. Patel wished to avoid “criminal prosecution”. I told Mr. Wales I would have to
refer him to the Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) of the U. S. EPA. I told Mr. Wales I
would pass his name and number on to C.I.D.
18. On Thursday February 19, 2015, I received the final results from all of the swabs taken at the
Knights Inn in Michigan City, Indiana. There were 29 rooms which tested positive for the
active ingredient dichlorvos. The chart which follows depicts the final results provided by the
OISC Residue Laboratory. The sample description begins with the room number and will
appear twice in the chart followed by either a dash one (101-1) or a dash two (101-2). There
were two swabs taken in each room, the “dash one” is a template swab and the “dash two” is
a free swab. The results are reported out in nanograms per swab (ng/swab) or present but
below quantitation limit (BQL).
Lab sample #
2015-0169
2015-0174
2015-0175
2015-0176
2015-0177
2015-0185
2015-0187
2015-0193
2015-0248
2015-0249
2015-0256
2015-0257
2015-0262
2015-0263
2015-0265
2015-0266
2015-0267
2015-0278
2015-0279
2015-0282
2015-0283
2015-0284
2015-0285
2015-0286
2015-0328
2015-0329
2015-0332
2015-0333
2015-0334
2015-0335
2015-0336
2015-0337
2015-0338
2015-0339
2015-0340
Investigator sample #
Lobby-2
102-1
102-2
103-1
103-2
107-2
108-2
132-2
235-1
235-2
239-1
239-2
242-1
242-2
Maint.-2
301-1
301-2
307-1
307-2
309-1
309-2
310-1
310-2
311-1
406-1
406-2
408-1
408-2
409-1
409-2
410-1
410-2
411-1
411-2
412-1
Page 6 of 11
Analysis result(s) ng/swab
BQL
7184
9193
338
181
BQL
125
433
679
586
3935
1961
872
879
2424
2504
5180
9127
14081
703
744
1361
725
171
2514
4603
2300
2681
3283
7554
2005
4098
6718
14455
1265
2015-0341
2015-0343
2015-0348
2015-0349
2015-0350
2015-0351
2015-0352
2015-0353
2015-0354
2015-0355
2015-0356
2015-0357
2015-0358
2015-0359
2015-0360
2015-0361
412-2
HSKP-2
434-1
434-2
435-1
435-2
436-1
436-2
437-1
437-2
438-1
438-2
439-1
439-2
440-1
440-2
2943
BQL
27623
7940
1961
4725
22132
5588
1918
9575
7524
17993
12606
2124
3394
10774
I contacted Ms. Patty Nocek of the Laporte County Health Department by e-mail and by
phone. I provided the charted results to Ms. Nocek.
19. On Friday February 20, 2015, at approx. 6:30pm, I received a phone call from Ms. Patty
Nocek. Ms. Nocek told me she spent the last few hours with Mr. Dipen Patel and his wife.
Ms. Nocek told me Mr. Patel confessed to her he brought the UPL Doom pesticide to the
United States after purchasing it in India. Mr. Patel told Ms. Nocek he had a full bottle of
the Doom pesticide and added he was storing it in the trunk of his car. I asked Ms. Nocek to
forward a written statement to me.
20. On Monday February 23, 2015, I received a phone call from Mr. Bill Wales, Attorney for
Mr. Patel. Mr. Wales told me he had been under the impression Mr. Patel had turned all the
Doom pesticide over to OISC. I told Mr. Wales I was enroute to pick up the bottle of Doom
from Mr. Patel and asked for cooperation in the matter. Mr. Wales assured me he would call
Mr. Patel and instruct him to turn the remaining full bottle of Doom pesticide over to me.
Mr. Wales called back a short time later and let me know Mr. Patel was at the Super 8 motel
in Howe, Indiana. Mr. Wales told me he instructed his client, Mr. Patel, to “stay put” until I
arrived to take control of the full bottle of Doom pesticide. I drove directly to the Super 8 in
Howe, Indiana and met with Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel turned the full bottle of Doom pesticide
over to me (see fig 7). I completed a pesticide sample collection report for the bottle of
Doom and Mr. Patel signed the form. The 6-8 oz. bottle of Doom, active ingredient
dichlorvos, was transported to the OISC Formulation Laboratory and turned in for analysis.
Fig. 7
Page 7 of 11
21. On Wednesday May 27, 2015, OISC Agents Brian Baker and Paul J. Kelly, along with
OISC Compliance Officer Dr. George Saxton, went back to the Knights Inn located in
Michigan City, Indiana and made contact with Mr. Dipen Patel. I issued Mr. Patel a Notice
of Inspection. Mr. Patel had been expecting our return inspection and understood we would
be conducting air quality sampling and taking more swab samples. Mr. Patel accompanied
us to the rooms we would be working in and provided us with a pass key to access the four
rooms. The rooms chosen for the air quality sampling were room numbers 434,435,436 and
437. The swab sampling would be done in room 434 only.
22. The air sampling was done with “Buck Libra Plus” air sampling pumps. A total of four
pumps were used. The pumps were all calibrated for a flow rate of 1000 cc/m. The required
run time for the target compound “dichlorvos” was 8 hours for a total of 480.0L of air
volume sampled for each pump. The lot number for the air sampling tubes was 65293. The
pumps used and their locations were as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
SN-LP050144
Room 437
Sample # AS-1
SN-LP050146
Room 436
Sample # AS-2
SN-LP050142
Room 435
Sample # AS-3
SN-LP050145
Room 434
Sample # AS-4
Note: The sample marked AS-0 was the trip blank for the air sampling
The pumps were set for 8 hours and each ran for the 8 hours and each recorded 480.0L of air
volume sampled. The air samples were transported to the OISC Residue Laboratory and
turned in for analysis.
23. The acetone swab samples were all taken from room 434 in the following order and location.
•
•
•
•
•
•
TS-0
ASW-1
ASW-2
ASW-3
ASW-4
ASW-5
Trip Blank Swab
Swab of the base area under the sink.
Swab of base and floor by the door.
Swab of large table (top-center)
Swab of nightstand (top-center)
Swab of inside middle drawer (chest of drawers)
All of the swabs were taken using a template. All of the swabs were transported to the OISC
Residue Laboratory and turned in for analysis.
24. On June 2, 2015, I received the final analysis report from the OISC Residue Laboratory on
the sampling done at the Knights Inn on May 27, 2015. The chart which follows is a record
of the final results.
Lab Sample #
Investigators Sample#
Sample Description
2016-0696
2015-0697
TS-0
ASW-1
2015-0698
ASW-2
2015-0699
ASW-3
Trip blank swab
Acetone swab baseboard
under sink Rm 434
Acetone swab base and
floor area by door Rm 434
Acetone swab long table
top area Rm 434
Page 8 of 11
Amount of
Dichlorvos Found
BDL
555 ng/swab
279 ng/swab
BDL
2015-0700
ASW-4
2015-0701
ASW-5
2015-0702T
AS-0
2015-0702B
AS-0
2015-0703T
AS-1
2015-0703B
AS-1
2015-0704T
AS-2
2015-0704B
AS-2
2015-0705T
AS-3
2015-0705B
AS-3
2015-0706T
AS-4
2015-0706B
AS-4
Acetone swab nightstand
top
Acetone swab inside
middle drawer, three
drawer chest Rm 434
Air sample trip blank
absorbent top layer
Air sample trip blank
absorbent bottom layer
Air sample Rm 437
absorbent top layer
Air sample Rm 437
Air sample Rm 436
absorbent top layer
Air sample Rm 436
Air sample Rm 435
absorbent top layer
Air sample Rm 435
Air sample Rm 434
absorbent top layer
Air sample Rm 434
BDL
284 ng/swab
BDL
BDL
763 ng/tube
20.8 ng/tube
1694 ng/tube
10.1 ng/tube
630 ng/tube
BDL
528 ng/tube
BDL
BDL=Below detection limits, ng/tube=nanograms/tube
LOQ=(Limit of Quantitation) 50 ng/swab or 10 ng/air sampling tube
25. On Monday June 22, 2015, at the request of Ms. Nocek, OISC Agents Brian Baker and Paul
J. Kelly along with OISC Compliance Officer Dr. George Saxton, went back to the Knights
Inn located in Michigan City, Indiana and made contact with Mr. Dipen Patel. I issued Mr.
Patel a Notice of Inspection. Mr. Patel had been expecting our return inspection and
understood we would be conducting a second round of air quality sampling and taking more
swab samples after clean up attempts had been made. Mr. Patel accompanied us to the
rooms we would be working in and provided us with a pass key to access the four rooms.
The rooms chosen for the air quality sampling were room numbers 434,435,436 and 437.
The swab sampling would be done in room 434 only.
26. The air sampling was done with “Buck Libra Plus” air sampling pumps. A total of four
pumps were used. The pumps were all calibrated for a flow rate of 1000 cc/m. The required
run time for the target compound “dichlorvos” was 8 hours for a total of 480.0L of air
volume sampled for each pump. The lot number for the air sampling tubes is 66018. The
pumps used and their locations were as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
SN-LP050142
Room 437
Sample # AS-1
SN-LP050143
Room 436
Sample # AS-2
SN-LP050144
Room 435
Sample # AS-3
SN-LP050145
Room 434
Sample # AS-4
Note: The sample marked AS-0 was the trip blank for the air sampling
Page 9 of 11
27. The acetone swab samples were taken from room 434 and 435 in the following order and
location.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TB-0
434-1
434-2
434-3
434-4
435-1
435-2
435-3
435-4
Trip Blank Swab
Swab of the base area under the sink.
Swab of large round table top
Swab inside dresser drawer
Swab of baseboard under sink.
Swab of large round table top
Swab inside dresser drawer
28. On July 3, 2015, I received the final analysis results for the swabs and air quality samples
taken at the Knights Inn Michigan City location on June 22, 2015. The chart which follows
is a record of those results. The results were forwarded to Ms. Patty Nocek of the Laporte
County Health Department.
Lab sample#
Investigator’s sample#
2015-0830
2015-0831T
AS-0
AS-1
2015-0831B
AS-1
2015-0832T
AS-2
2015-0832B
AS-2
2015-0833T
AS-3
2015-0833B
AS-3
2015-0834T
AS-4
2015-0834B
AS-4
2015-0835
434-1
2015-0836
434-2
2015-0837
434-3
2015-0838
434-4
2015-0839
435-1
2015-0840
435-2
Sample description
Amount of
Dichlorvos found.
Air sample blank
BDL
Air sample Rm 437 203 ng/tube
absorbent top layer
Air sample Rm 437 BDL
absorbent top layer
Air sample Rm 436 BQL
absorbent top layer
absorbent top layer
Acetone
swab BDL
baseboard under sink
Rm 434
Acetone swab large BDL
round table Rm 434
Acetone inside dresser 91.7 ng/swab
drawer Rm 434
Acetone
swab 45.8 ng/swab
baseboard and floor
behind door Rm 434
Acetone
swab 1464 ng/swab
baseboard under sink
Acetone swab large BDL
round table top Rm 435
Page 10 of 11
2015-0841
435-3
2015-0842
435-4
2015-0843
TB-0
Acetone swab inside 753 ng/swab
dresser drawer Rm 435
Acetone
swab 38.3 ng/swab
baseboard and floor
behind door
Trip blank swab
BDL
BDL=Below detection limits, ng/swab=nanograms/swab, BQL Below quantitation limits
LOQ=(limits of quantitation) 50 ng/swab or 10 ng/air sampling tube.
Brian P. Baker
Date: July 8, 2015
DISPOSITION: This case was forwarded to US EPA C.I.D. for review.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
CC: Patty Nocek
LaPorte County Health Dept.
809 State Street Suite 401 A
La Porte, Indiana 46350
219-326-6808 Ext. 2200
[email protected]
Page 11 of 11
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/0880
Complainant:
Brad Watson
10290 N. Murphy Road
Brazil, Indiana 47834
812-420-2548
Respondent:
Ceres Solutions
David Schroer
113 S. Forest Avenue
Brazil, Indiana 47834
812-230-8169
Licensed Business
Crop Specialist
1. On May 8, 2015, the complainant contacted the Compliance Officer of the Office of Indiana
State Chemist (OISC) to report an agricultural runoff to his property. He stated he believed
his pond was contaminated with herbicides as a result of runoff from a neighboring Ceres
Solutions facility.
2. On May 12, 2015, I met with Mr. Watson at his residence which is the address listed above.
Mr. Watson explained his complaint to me and took me to the pond on his property he
believed was contaminated. I observed the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Watson pond is surrounded on the north, south and east sides by woods and is
not directly adjacent to the Ceres facility.
The main source of water for the Watson pond appears to be runoff from the Ceres
facility and the grassy field that adjoins the Ceres facility.
The runoff water makes its way through a neighbor’s woods (the Tilley property)
before it enters the Watson property.
There appeared to be substantial erosion occurring on the Tilley property and this was
causing silt to enter the Watson pond.
The erosion on the Tilley property appeared to be the result of runoff water leaving
the Ceres facility.
The Ceres facility was an anhydrous ammonia facility and did not have any pesticides
stored on-site.
Ceres Solutions employees were releasing liquid from a poly tank in the southeast
corner of the anhydrous facility. I was told the liquid was pesticide rinse water from
the main Ceres facility in Brazil.
Page 1 of 3
Watson pond looking east
Ceres anhydrous facility
Release of pesticide rinse water
Erosion on Tilley property
3. I photographed the Watson pond, the waterway to the pond through the Tilley property, the
Ceres anhydrous facility and the release of the pesticide rinse water. In addition, I obtained
a water sample from the Watson pond for analysis by the OISC residue laboratory.
4. I then went to the main Ceres Solutions facility on Forest Avenue in Brazil, Indiana and
spoke to David Schroer, Crop Specialist; and Matt Mace, Crop Sales Specialist. I explained
Mr. Watson’s complaint to them and related what I had observed regarding the Watson
pond and the release of the pesticide rinse water at their anhydrous facility. Both Mr.
Schroer and Mr. Mace agreed that allowing the pesticide rinse water to be released in one
place was a bad idea. They agreed to stop the practice immediately. Mr. Schroer stated
Ceres most frequently used herbicides were atrazine, acetochlor, and 2,4-D.
5. According to the OISC residue laboratory, five pesticides were detected in the water sample
obtained from the Watson pond. They were detected at the following levels:
• Atrazine
9.8 ppb
• Dicamba
1.5 ppb
• Metolachlor
1.9 ppb
• Acetochlor
9.2 ppb
• 2,4-D
0.2 ppb
o ppb = parts per billion
Page 2 of 3
6. The AAtrex 4L label states, “Pesticide Disposal, Open dumping is prohibited. Wastes
resulting from the use of this product are acutely toxic. Improper disposal of unused
pesticide, spray mixture or rinsate is a violation of federal law.”…
7. Atrazine, acetochlor and 2,4-D were detected in the Watson pond. All three of these
pesticides were routinely used by Ceres Solutions at their main Brazil facility and were
likely contained in any pesticide rinse water. The Watson pond is fed only by water from
the adjacent woods (which has no pesticides applied to it) and by runoff water from the
Ceres anhydrous facility. Pesticide rinse water was observed being released onto the
anhydrous facility by Ceres employees on the date of the investigation. It is most likely that
the pesticides detected in the Watson pond arrived via runoff from the Ceres anhydrous
facility.
Joseph D. Becovitz
Investigator
Date: November 20, 2015
DISPOSITION: Ceres Solutions was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding open dumping of
pesticide waste. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: December 16, 2015
Final Date: January 20, 2016
Page 3 of 3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/0917
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist
175 S. University St.
Lafayette, Indiana 47907
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Ray Gash
R&A Termite & Pest Control
P.O. Box 177
Alvin, IL 61811
217-474-5164
Licensed Business
1. On, May 4, 2015, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information from Ray Gash
of R&A Termite & Pest Control that he would be performing a pre-construction termite control
treatment pesticide application at 5901 Olive Branch Road in Greenwood, Indiana (46143).
2. On May 18, 2015, I contacted Mr. Gash to acquire all the required documentation he completed on
the pre-construction termite application at 5901 Olive Branch Road in Greenwood, Indiana. Mr.
Gash asked me to call or email his secretary for the information. On May 18, 2015, I sent an email
requesting documentation to [email protected].
3. On May 19, 2015, I received a return email containing the following documents;
A. Termite Pretreat Service Report with heading “R&A Termite & Pest Control” showing Talstar
(EPA Reg. #279-3206) was applied at .18%.
•
•
Slab area treat was 10136 square feet using 507 total gallons of use dilution.
Outside foundation treated at 492 linear feet using a total of 100 gallons of use dilution.
B. Technician Check List.
C. A diagram of the structure denoting 12104 square feet.
4. On May 26, 2015, I met with Jim Buffer, Superintendent for Brandt Construction, Inc. Brandt is
the construction company managing the construction on 5901 Olive Branch Road in Greenwood,
Indiana. Mr. Duffer stated and verified the square footage of the slab floor is 12104 square feet.
Mr. Duffer’s construction plans verify the dimensions. Mr. Duffer stated he told Mr. Gash the
exterior grade was partially completed, if the treated soil was moved, R&A Termite & Pest Control
would need to return to re-treat. Mr. Duffer stated the depth to footer is 4 block from footer to
grade (1 block 8inches X 4 = 32 inches or approximately 2.5 feet).
5. Label language for Talstar P states in part, “Effective pre-construction subterranean termite control
is achieved by the establishment of vertical and/or horizontal insecticidal barriers using 0.06%
dilution of Talstar P Professional Insecticide”. However, the label does list 0.12% as a dilution
Page 1 of 2
rate. Furthermore, the label states, “Vertical barriers must be established in areas such as around
base of foundations…”
6. Based on the contractor’s diagram showing 12104 square feet of slab area, 2.5 feet depth-to-footer,
and using the rate of 0.12%, I calculated the following totals for amount of use dilution:
Slab
12104 ft2 X 0.1(10gals/ft2) = 1210 gallons divided by ½ (for 0.12% rate) = 605 total gallons of
slab area.
Inside Vertical
492 linear feet X 0.4 (4gals/10 linear feet) X 2.5 DTF = 492 gallons divided by ½ (For 1.12%
rate) = 246 total gallons.
Outside Vertical
492 linear feet X 0.4 (4gals/10 linear feet) X 2.5 DTF = 492 gallons divided by ½ (For 1.12%
rate) = 246 total gallons.
Total gallons 1097
7. Mr. Gash’s calculation for total volume of use dilution (607gal) is 490 gallons less than my
calculation of 1097 total gallons of use dilution based off the contractor’s information.
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
Date: June 3, 2015
Disposition: Ray Gash was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding rate and application of termiticide
volume. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was
given to the fact this was his second violation of similar nature. See case number 2014/1253.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: June 30, 2015
CC
Jim Duffer
330 E. St. Joseph Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-638-3300
CC
Saints Francis & Clare Roman Catholic Church and School
5901 Olive Branch Road
Greenwood, IN 46143
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/0933
Complainant:
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2063
765-494-1585
Respondent:
Showcase Lawn Care
Jordan Vanwye
10898 E. US Hwy 36
Avon, Indiana 46123
317-250-1333
Unlicensed Business
1. On May 7, 2015, Leo Reed, the Manager of Licensing and Certification for OISC, phoned
me and asked me to go to Showcase Lawn Care to issue a Stop Action Order. Mr. Reed
explained he had just had a conversation with Jordan Vanwye, the owner of Showcase Lawn
Care, regarding the company’s licensing status. Mr. Reed stated he tried repeatedly to
explain to Mr. Vanwye that his company’s business license was no longer valid because
Showcase’s only certified applicator (John Craig) was no longer employed at Showcase
Lawn Care. Mr. Reed stated that Mr. Vanwye had become verbally abusive on the phone
and that Mr. Vanwye hung up on him.
2. I then went to Showcase Lawn Care, arriving at about 9:45am. I introduced myself to office
manager, Lindsey Harlan and asked if Mr. Vanwye was onsite. Ms. Harlan stated he was not
due to be back for quite some time. I then presented my credentials to Ms. Harlan and issued
her a Notice of Inspection. I thoroughly explained the licensing situation to Ms. Harlan and
issued a Stop Action Order (SAO) to Showcase Lawn Care. The SAO clearly stated
Showcase was to stop all pesticide applications until such time as the company obtained a
certified applicator.
3. Later that afternoon, I received a phone call from Jordan Vanwye. Mr. Vanwye insisted his
company had a valid business license, that I had no right to go to his place of business and
that he would continue to make pesticide applications and that we (OISC) could not stop
him. He then hung up. A few minutes later he called me back and apologized, but then
lapsed into the same tenor as the previous call and promptly hung up again. Finally, I
received a third phone call from the Showcase Lawn Care phone number. However, when I
answered the call this time it was a Jeff Mann. Mr. Mann explained he was the operations
manager for Showcase Lawn Care and that he had been instructed by Mr. Vanwye to call
me and find out what Showcase had to do to make things right. I explained I would need a
copy of Showcase’s application records for 2015. Mr. Mann agreed to provide the
requested records to me.
4. On May 15, 2015, I phoned Jeff Mann to ask whether he had sent me the application records
we discussed. Mr. Mann stated he forgot about the records and that he would have to
Page 1 of 2
discuss the records with Mr. Vanwye. Within seconds of concluding my conversation with
Mr. Mann, I received a phone call from Jordan Vanwye. Mr. Vanwye was extremely
agitated and abusive, repeatedly calling me a “little bitch” and stated that I was harassing
him and that he was going to get me fired. He stated he was not going to provide any
records and then hung up.
5. On May 18, 2015, OISC requested a subpoena from the Indiana Pesticide Review Board
(IPRB) be sent to Showcase Lawn Care requiring them to produce their pesticide and
fertilizer application records.
6. On June 4, 2015, OISC received Showcase’s response to IPRB’s subpoena. The response
was incomplete in that it only provided a list of Showcase customers, but did not provide
application records or application dates.
7. On June 5, 2015, George Saxton, OISC’s Compliance and Enforcement Officer, contacted
Mr. Vanwye by phone to seek more specific information regarding Showcase’s application
records. According to Mr. Vanwye, Showcase Lawn Care made pesticide/fertilizer
applications to lawns for five days from April 13 to April 17, 2015. Mr. Vanwye also stated
Showcase does not have any application records.
8. As of December 7, 2015, Showcase Lawn Care still advertises fertilization and/or weed
control on their company website (copy in case file) and have not obtained the necessary
licensing.
Joseph D. Becovitz
Investigator
DISPOSITION: Showcase Lawn Care and Jordan Vanwye were cited for one (1) count of
violation of section 65(9)(A) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for
professing to be in the business of applying pesticides/fertilizers 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
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/0935
Complainant:
175 South University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Tom Kennedy
Juday Creek Golf Course
14770 Lindy Drive
Granger, Indiana 46530
574-253-7072
Unlicensed Applicator
1. On May 18, 2015, the Compliance Officer was notified by the certification and licensing
section of the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) David Conklin, the only certified
applicator for the golf course, was no longer employed by the course.
2. I met with the golf course superintendent Tom Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy told me he was a
licensed applicator in Wisconsin prior to his current position. He said he thought his license
transferred to Indiana via “reciprocity”. I explained since he worked at a golf course in
Indiana, he needed to be a licensed pesticide applicator to make pesticide applications at the
golf course. I gave him the information to obtain his applicator license.
3. Mr. Kennedy admitted he made the following pesticide applications without his pesticide
applicator license:
4/27/15
Heritage
EPA #100-1093
5/8/15
Proxy
EPA #432-1230
4. In conclusion, Juday Creek Golf Course is in violation for making two pesticide applications
without a licensed pesticide applicator.
Kevin W. Gibson
Investigator
Date: June 4, 2015
DISPOSITION: Juday Creek Golf Course was cited for two (2) counts of violation of section
65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-2, for
applying pesticides to a golf course without having a certified applicator. A civil penalty in the
amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was
reduced to $350.00. Consideration was given to the fact Juday Creek Golf Course cooperated
during the investigation and no restricted pesticides were involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: June 9, 2015
Final Date: March 2, 2016
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1048
Complainant:
Lei Gunthorp
450 N 850 E
Lagrange, IN 46761
260-463-1591
Respondent
Ray Gunthorp
0810 N 925 E.
Lagrange, IN 46761
260-367-1351
1. On June 19, 2015, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a complaint from
Mrs. Lei Gunthorp regarding a neighbor / family member spreading insecticide along her
chicken farm fence. Mrs. Gunthorp stated she and her husband have a free range chicken
operation and feels the family member is attempting to kill the chickens with the
insecticide. She further stated she had contacted the Lagrange County Sheriff’s
Department as the same family member had shot some of her chickens.
2. I made telephone contact with Mrs. Gunthorp and she advised me Ray Gunthorp, her
brother-in-law, had been applying pesticides under his father’s (Theodore Gunthorp)
license. She stated Ray and her husband Greg Gunthorp have had an ongoing dispute
regarding their chicken operation, which is directly west of a corn field farmed by Ray
and his father. She stated her chicken operation is located on the NE corner of SR 3 and
US 20. She stated Ray had shot some of her chickens both inside of her fence and some
which had gotten out into the corn field. She stated he has now spread a reddish colored
substance, she thought to be an insecticide, along the fence on the east side of her chicken
operation. She stated the substance was spread in a long row along the outside of her
fence in an attempt to kill her chickens. She stated the substance had also fallen through
the fence into the chicken lot side of the fence. She stated Ray applied the substance on
June 13, 2015, in the morning. She further stated Ray had attempted to clean up the
substance, but there is still some on the ground. Mrs. Gunthorp further stated she had
spoken with Deputy Brent Houser of the Lagrange County Sheriff’s Department. She
stated he was investigating Ray shooting the gun across her chicken lot while her workers
were in the lot. Mrs. Gunthorp had sent photographs via email of the reddish substance
along her fence. The photographs are in this case file.
3. I then made telephone contact with Deputy Houser. He agreed to meet with me at the
intersection of SR 3 and US 20.
4. On June 22, 2015, I met with Deputy Houser. He took me to the location where he had
observed the reddish colored substance along the fence along with dead chickens. He
stated he was investigating the report of the shots being fired across the chicken lot. I
observed some reddish colored substance along the fence and inside of the fence on the
Page 1 of 4
east side of the chicken lot. I did not observe any dead chickens along or outside of the
fence. I took photographs of the area and collected soil samples from the east side of the
fence and inside of the fence on the complainant’s property. The samples were labeled
and submitted to the OISC residue lab. The following photographs show the location the
reddish substance was along the fence. Photograph #1 shows location of corn field to the
chicken lot. Photograph #2 shows the reddish substance along the fence. Photograph #3
shows the length the substance was spread. Photograph #4 shows corn kernels spread
along the fence.
photograph #1
photograph #2
photograph #3
photograph #4
5. Deputy Houser and I then went to 0240 N 850 E to the residence of Mr. Theodore
Gunthorp. I explained to Mr. Gunthorp why we were there. He stated he was aware of
the problems between Ray and Greg. He stated he had tried to settle the problem but had
no success in doing so. He stated he is a certified pesticide applicator and he and Ray
farm the corn field next to the chicken lot. Theodore stated he makes the pesticide
applications to the fields and Ray farms the ground. I asked if they had applied any dry
pesticides to the corn field next to the chicken lot. He stated he had. He stated he believed
it to be Lorsban insecticide, but would have to check records at Ray’s to be sure. He
stated there was still some of the insecticide in the hoppers on the corn planter in his barn.
6. We went with him to the barn and I looked inside of the hoppers on the corn planter and
observed a reddish dry substance which appeared to be the same substance I had
observed along the chicken lot fence. Theodore stated he had applied the insecticide at
the time he planted the corn earlier that year.
7. Deputy Houser and I then went to 1165 N 1175 E and made contact with Mr. Ray
Gunthorp. I identified myself and explained to him why I was there. He at first denied
any knowledge of what I was talking about. I then informed him I had spoken with his
Page 2 of 4
father and that Deputy Houser had a police report regarding the complaint. Ray then
stated his brother Greg was allowing the chickens to get out of the fence and into the corn
field, which was causing damage to the corn field. I asked Ray if he had spread
insecticide along the chicken lot fence. He finally admitted he did spread the insecticide
along the fence. I asked him why he did that. He stated he was tired of the chickens
getting out into the corn field and he put a little out. I asked him why I found piles of corn
kernels spread along the fence along with the reddish substance believed to be
insecticide. He stated he put the corn there to lure the chickens over to the corn kernels
and they would consume the insecticide along with the corn. I asked him if his intent was
to kill the chickens and he stated he was intending to kill the chickens. Deputy Houser
was present and heard Ray admit to this. I then asked Ray what kind of insecticide he
used. He stated there were bags of the insecticide in the barn. We then went to the barn
and he showed me a pallet of bags of Lorsban 15 G granular insecticide EPA Reg. #
62719-34 with the active ingredient chlorpyrifos. Ray stated this was the same granular
insecticide he spread along the chicken lot fence. I took photographs of a bag of the
insecticide. The following photograph #5 shows the bag of insecticide.
Photograph #5
8. I researched the label for Lorsban 15 G granular insecticide. The label states, This
pesticide is toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, small mammals and birds. Do not allow
granules to drift from the application site and contact people, structures people occupy at
any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, non-target crops,
aquatic and wetland sites, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals.
9. On November 19, 2015, I received a report from the OISC residue lab. The following
table indicates the results of the lab report. PPM = parts per million
sample analyzed
soil from corn field side
soil from complt’s property
active ingredient
chlorpyrifos
chlorpyrifos
Robert D. Brewer
Investigator
amount detected
1110.0 PPM
132.0 PPM
Date: December 2, 2015
DISPOSITION:
A. Ray Gunthorp was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding allowing the pesticide off
the target site.
Page 3 of 4
B. Ray Gunthorp was cited for violation of section 65(5) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for operating in a careless and negligent manner by intentionally trying
to kill chickens with a pesticide. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed
for these violations.
C. On February 3, 2016, an informal conference was held at the home of Ray Gunthorp.
Mr. Gunthorp stated he wanted to clarify some things in the case summary.
a. The address on the summary was wrong. It should be 0810 N. 925 E. I told him I
would make the change.
b. He stated he only shot chickens that were on his side of the property line.
c. He stated he only put the insecticide down to kill bugs that feed on corn since he
was getting to re-plant and had no intention of killing chickens. He shot to kill
chickens but did not intend the pesticide to kill chickens.
d. He stated a Dow representative told him the chickens could have tracked back
132 ppm of chlorpyrifos onto Greg’s side of the fence.
e. He stated his brother Greg had access to his corn planter and could have placed
the insecticide himself. Ray stated he found the lid unlatched on the corn planter
when he knows for certain he latched the lid.
f. He stated his brother Greg, husband of Lei, has been feuding with him. He stated
Greg swept the insecticide onto his own property just to try and get Ray in
trouble. See photograph #6.
Photograph #6 Greg Gunthorp Sweeping
g. He stated his father, Theodore Gunthorp, has made the comment that “Greg is
f*****g us all the time!”
D. I advised Ray Gunthorp I would add his comments to the summary and re-evaluate.
E. On February 11, 2016, Ray Gunthorp sent an email with further explanation of his side of
the story. His comments were added to the case file.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Cc:
Draft Date: February 12, 2016
Deputy Brent Houser
LaGrange County Sheriff’s Department
0875 S SR 9
LaGrange, Indiana 46761
Page 4 of 4
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1096
Complainant:
Dan Naugle
3118 E. Centerton Road
Mooresville, Indiana 46158
317-332-5335
Farmer
Respondent:
Holly Hornaday
Rural King
1800 S. Ohio Street
Martinsville, Indiana 46151
765-352-2980
Assistant Manager
1. On June 26, 2015, the complainant contacted the Compliance Officer of the Office of Indiana
State Chemist (OISC). He stated he had planted Roundup-ready soybeans and ran out of
glyphosate to finish the field. He stated his wife went to Rural King and purchased a two and
a half gallon container that had no label but she was allegedly told by a Rural King employee
it contained Roundup. The complainant stated he used the alleged Roundup in the unmarked container and now has dead beans.
2. On June 29, 2015, I, Agent Brian Baker of OISC, met with the complainant and his wife
Crystal Naugle at their home. I identified myself to the Naugles verbally and with OISC
credentials. I explained the role of OISC in their case and issued a Notice of Inspection to
Mr. Naugle. I asked the complainant and his wife if they could go back to what prompted
them to file a complaint with OISC and provide me with as much detail as they could.
3. The complainant told me it was the past Wednesday, 6-24-15, when he was just about 35
acres from completing all his pesticide spray applications to his glyphosate-resistant soybean
fields and he ran out of glyphosate. The complainant stated he sent his wife to the Rural King
store in Martinsville, Indiana to purchase six and a half gallons of glyphosate products which
is what he needed to complete his pesticide spray applications. The complainant’s wife
returned with 4, one gallon containers of Glyphosate 41 and 1, 2.5 gallon container which
was not marked but sold as glyphosate (fig 2). The complainant said the unmarked container
had a bit of a different smell but he placed it in the mix tank along with the others and
finished spraying the 35 acres of soybeans. The complainant stated he noted the field of
beans sprayed with the last tank mix began to exhibit pesticide injury symptoms as soon as
the next day (fig.1).
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Page 1 of 4
Fig. 4
4. The complainant told me he used the following pesticide products in a tank mix.
•
•
•
Fusion, EPA Reg# 100-1059, active ingredients=fluazifop-P-butyl 24.15%, fenoxaprop
P-ethyl 6.76%
Roundup weather max, EPA Reg#524-537, active ingredient=glyphosate 48.8%
Imitator Plus, EPA Reg#19713-526, active ingredient=glyphosate 41%
5. The complainant turned over the 2.5 gallon container to me and it was tagged with OISC
formulation tag 2015-1109 (fig. 2). The complainant told me he still had some of the usedilution in his spray tank and added it should not contain any 2,4-D. I was able to obtain a
sample of the use dilution for testing. The use dilution was captured in a water collection
container and was tagged with OISC formulation tag 2015-1110 (fig 3&4). The two samples
were transported back to the OISC Formulation Laboratory for analysis. The complainant
also provided the Rural King store receipt for the purchased described in paragraph 3.
6. The complainant took me to the agricultural crop field where he applied the use dilution to his
soybean crop. The soybean crop was falling over and there was twisting of the stems on the
tips and all of the leaves on the plants were drooping over (fig. 1). I collected a water swab of
the soybean plants and an acetone swab as well. I also collected a vegetation sample and a
soil sample from the agricultural crop field of soybeans. The swabs, vegetation and soils
samples were taken to the OISC residue laboratory for analysis. 1
7. I went to the Rural King Store in Martinsville, Indiana and made contact with store Manager,
Robert Knubbe and Assistant Manager Holly Hornaday. Ms. Hornaday was the person who
sold the alleged unmarked container of pesticide to the complainant’s wife. I identified
myself verbally and with OISC credentials and explained the complaint to the store
managers. I showed the store managers the store receipt the complainant provided to me. Mr.
Knubbe was able to look up the purchase and he printed a duplicate receipt for me. The
receipts were placed in the case file. Ms. Hornaday disputed the portion of the complaint
where Mrs. Naugle said there was no marking or label on the container. Ms. Hornaday
showed me where the 2.5 gallon of Glyphosate 41 was on the shelf and showed me the shelf
tag which indicated what was stocked on that shelf. Ms. Hornaday remembered assuring Mrs.
Naugle it was glyphosate and showed her the shelf tag indicating it was a shelf for
glyphosate. I pointed out to Ms. Hornaday there would be no reason to “point to the tag on
the shelf” if there was a label on the container. I placed a phone call to the OISC Formulation
Laboratory and asked if there were any numbers stamped on the 2.5 gallon container tagged
with formulation tag# 2015-1109. The container was checked by Laboratory personnel and
the only number found on the container was 12 US 0006. I checked all of the pesticide
containers on display and in the store room and could not find another number on a container
which corresponded to the one on the container which the complainant turned over to me. I
asked Rural King store Manager Robert Knubbe to check that number and see if it
corresponded to a pesticide product the store stocked. Mr. Knubbe checked and the number
and did not correspond to anything Rural King had in their inventory.
1
Not all samples taken will be analyzed in every case.
Page 2 of 4
8. On September 1, 2015, I received the final analysis from the OISC Residue Laboratory. The
chart which follows documents those results.
Laboratory sample# Investigator sample# and
Active ingredient(s) Analysis result(s)
description.
20150879
TB-0 Trip blank swab for 2,4-D
BDL
6-29-15
20150880
WS-1 Water swab of field 2,4-D
74.1 NG/S
vegetation
20150881
AS-1 Acetone swab of
2,4-D
148.0 NG/S
field vegetation
20150882
SS-1 Soil sample from
2,4-D
N/A
victims field
20150883
VVS-1 Vegetation sample 2,4-D
N/A
from victims field
BDL=Below Detection Limits, NG/S=Nanograms/Swab, N/A=Not Analyzed
9. On September 2, 2015, I received the final analysis report from the OISC Formulation
Laboratory for the samples submitted. The report reflected the following results.
•
•
The 2.5 gallon container tagged #2015-1109 contained the active ingredient 2,4-D acid
equivalent of 45.0 %.
The sample of the complainants use dilution tank mix of pesticides contained those listed
in paragraph 4 and also 0.029% of 2,4-D acid equivalent.
10. On June 24, 2015, Mrs. Crystal Naugle purchased a 2.5 gallon clear plastic container of what
she believed was a “glyphosate” product from the Rural King Store at 1800 S. Ohio Street in
Martinsville, Indiana. Mrs. Naugle alleged the container was void of any labeling at the time
of purchase. The assistant manager of that same Rural King, Ms. Holly Hornaday, was the
person who sold the container to Mrs. Naugle and she maintained there was a label on the 2.5
gallon plastic container which indicated the active ingredient of the contents was
“glyphosate”. Mr. Dan Naugle also alleged the 2.5 gallon plastic container had no markings
on it when he mixed it into a tank mix with the pesticide products listed in paragraph 4 of this
report and further stated, “it smelled different” than the other one gallon containers he mixed
in the tank. The subsequent testing of the container, use dilution, and swabs (paragraphs 8&9)
indicated the presence of 2,4-D. The active ingredient 2,4-D will cause the injury symptoms
observed on the complainant’s agricultural soybean crop in fig. 1.
11. I called the complainant to let him know I had the results back from the OISC Formulation
and Residue Laboratories. I told the complainant there was 2,4-D present in all sampling
which was tested. The complainant thanked me for all the work completed and then told me
his soybeans did recover. The complainant did not think he was going to suffer any substantial
loss of yield in this case.
Brian P. Baker
Investigator
Date: September 7, 2015
Page 3 of 4
DISPOSITION: Rural King was cited for violation of section 57(5) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for distributing a pesticide that is misbranded. A civil penalty in the
amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 4 of 4
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1219
Complainant:
West Lafayette, IN 47907
765-494-1585
Respondent:
Thomas Zimmerman
Chris Cioroianu
Turkey Creek Golf Course
6400 Harrison Street
Merrillville, IN 46410
219-980-8101
Grounds Supervisor
1. On September 10, 2015, I met with Mr. Tom Zimmerman, grounds supervisor for the Turkey
Creek Golf Course, to conduct a routine golf course inspection. During the inspection, I asked Mr.
Zimmerman who makes the pesticide applications to the golf course. He stated he did. I asked him
if he was a certified applicator and he stated he was a registered technician (RT). I asked him who
held a certified applicator license and supervised him as a registered technician. He stated Mr.
Chris Cioroianu of the Lake County Parks Department was the certified applicator. I asked Mr.
Zimmerman for his RT card and he stated he did not receive one. I asked how he knew he was an
RT and he stated he took the test. I asked him if he sent in the application to OISC and he stated he
thought the office administration would have. I asked Mr. Zimmerman for the pesticide application
records regarding the pesticide applications he had made. He provided me copies of the pesticide
application records. These copies are in this case file.
2. I then contact Ms. Jill Davis if the OISC licensing division. I asked her if Mr. Zimmerman was
licensed as an RT. She advised me he had taken the core examination and passed it, but OISC had
never received the application so he was not licensed as an RT. I then asked her if Mr. Cioroianu
was licensed as a certified applicator. She stated he was certified as a certified applicator in
category 3b (Turf Management), but had not renewed his license thus he is not currently licensed
or attached to any golf course. I then contacted Mr. Cioroianu by telephone and advised him of
this. I explained to him the process required for him to renew his category 3b certified applicator
license and the process to be attached to Turkey Creek Golf Course. I further advised him Mr.
Zimmerman’s application would need to be sent in for him to be licensed as an RT. Mr. Cioroianu
stated he would fill out all necessary paperwork and send it in to OISC immediately.
3. I then issued Mr. Zimmerman a STOP ACTION ORDER, ordering him to cease any and all
pesticide applications until obtaining proper licensing through the Office of Indiana State Chemist.
Mr. Zimmerman signed the order and stated he understood. I reviewed the pesticide application
records provided to me by Mr. Zimmerman. The following list indicates the pesticide applications
made by Mr. Zimmerman at Turkey Creek Golf Course.
Page 1 of 2
Date applied
Product applied
Active ingredient
April 8, 2015
Disarm C Fungicide EPA Reg. #66330-379
fluoxastrobin / chlorothalonil
May 1, 2015
Lesco 3-way herbicide EPA Reg. #228-317-10404
dicamba/MCPA/triclopyr
May 2, 2015
Lesco 3-way herbicide EPA Reg. #228-317-10404
dicamba/MCPA/triclopyr
May 7, 2015
Primera One fungicide EPA Reg. #60063-3
chlorothalonil
May 21, 2015
Spectator herbicide EPA Reg. #100-617-10404
propiconazole
June 8, 2015
chlorothalonil
June 18, 2015
chlorothalonil
propiconozole
July 1, 2015
propiconazole
July 6, 2015
chlorothalonil
July 16, 2015
chlorothalonil
July 24, 2015
propiconazole
August 13, 2015
chlorothalonil
August 26, 2015
propiconazole
Robert D. Brewer
Investigator
DISPOSITION:
A. Chris Cioroianu was cited for thirteen (13) counts of violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-2, for applying pesticides to a
golf course without having a certified applicator. A civil penalty in the amount of $3,250.00
(13 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was reduced to
$2,275.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Cioroianu cooperated during the
investigation and no restricted use pesticides were involved.
B. On November 16, 2015, an informal conference was held at Turkey Creek Golf Course. Mr.
Cioroianu stated that they were a city course and that the mailings don’t necessarily go to him.
He stated Thomas Zimmerman has passed his Core exam but had not applied for the license.
He stated he has since made arrangements for all communications from the Office of Indiana
State Chemist to go through him.
C. The civil penalty was reduced to $487.50. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Cioroianu
cooperated during the investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history
of similar nature; no potential for damage; a good faith effort to comply and no restricted use
pesticides were involved
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: November 17, 2015
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1226
Complainant:
765-494-1585
Respondent:
Aardvark Pest Control
Steve Klima
510 S. West Street
Mishawaka, Indiana 46544
574-255-8824
Licensed Business
Belltower Health and Rehabilitation Center
5805 Fir Road
Mishawaka, Indiana 46545
Treatment Site
1. On September 1, 2015, I performed a routine pre-construction termite control treatment
application (Pre-treatment) record inspection at Aardvark Pest Control. I met with and issued
a Notice of Inspection (NOI) to office manager Karen Klima. Ms. Klima gave me copies of
the records for termite pre-construction pesticide treatment for the Belltower Health and
Rehabilitation Center at 5805 Fir Road in Mishawaka, Indiana.
2. I went to the site of the pre-treatment. I confirmed the graph included in the records appeared
to be an accurate reproduction of the site. According to the records, licensed pesticide
applicator Steve Klima made the pre-treatment.
3. The records indicated five (5) separate pre-treatments were made at the location. Each
location included an inside vertical and horizontal pre-treatment of Baseline Insecticide
(EPA# 279-3177; active ingredient: bifenthrin) at .12% dilution rate to one foot depth-tofooter. Below are the calculations for amount of chemical needed each location:
Location #1:
7,778 square feet x 0.5 gallon per 10 square feet
430 inside linear feet x two gallons per 10 linear feet
Total amount of chemical needed
= 388.9 gallons
= 86.0 gallons
= 474.9 gallons
Applicator applied 410 gallons of .12% dilution rate for 86% of the total chemical needed for
location #1.
Page 1 of 3
Location #2:
= 718.5 gallons
= 129.4 gallons
= 847.9 gallons
Applicator applied 750.85 gallons of .12% dilution rate for 88% of the total chemical needed
for location #2.
Location #3:
8903 square feet x 0.5 gallon per 10 square feet
= 445.15 gallons
= 113.80 gallons
= 558.95 gallons
Applicator applied 473.60 gallons of .12% dilution rate for 84.7% of the total chemical
needed for location #3.
Location #4:
= 264.90 gallons
= 67.20 gallons
= 332.10 gallons
Applicator applied 281.7 gallons of .12% dilution rate for 84.8% of the total chemical needed
for location #4.
Location #5:
= 634.95 gallons
= 132.80 gallons
= 767.75 gallons
Applicator applied 668.15 gallons of .12% dilution rate for 87% of the total chemical needed
for location #5.
4. The Baseline Insecticide label states in part, “Where desirable for pre and post treats, the
volume of .12% emulsion may be reduced by ½ the label volume”….“To produce a
horizontal barrier, apply the emulsion at the rate of 1 gallon per 10 square feet to fill
soil”….”To produce a vertical barrier in soil, apply the emulsion are of 4 gallons per 10
linear feet per foot of depth…”
5. Based upon the above information, Mr. Klima applied between 84% and 88% of the required
insecticide at each location of the building site. It should be noted the discrepancy concerned
the inside vertical calculation for each location. When I spoke to Mr. Klima about the
discrepancy, he told me calculated the inside vertical amount of insecticide needed as one
gallon per ten linear feet instead of four gallons per ten linear feet. When he calculated for
Page 2 of 3
dilution rate of .12%, it became one half gallon per ten feet instead of two gallons per ten feet
required by label directions.
Kevin W. Gibson
Disposition: Steve Klima was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding label directed application
rates. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation. However, the
civil penalty was reduced to $750.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Klima cooperated
during the investigation. Consideration was also given to the fact this was his third violation of
similar nature. See case numbers 2010/0759 and 2010/0761.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 3 of 3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1229
Complainant:
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2063
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Scott Michael Morgan
Morgan Lawn Care
4973 N County Road 400 E
Pittsboro, Indiana 46167
317-331-5986
1. On August 21, 2015, I, George N. Saxton, Compliance Officer for OISC, went to the residence of
Morgan Lawn Care to do an inspection for application records and credentials. The Certification
and Licensing section of OISC had indicated Mr. Morgan’s certification had expired and therefore,
was operating without a license.
2. Upon arrival, I met a gentleman who identified himself as Scott Morgan’s father. He called Scott
Morgan on his cell and handed the cell phone to me. Scott Morgan told me he was out working but
would be happy to meet with me Monday, August 24th at 9:00am at his residence.
3. On August 24th, 2015, at 9:00am, I arrived at Scott Morgan’s home and knocked but no one
answered. I called the phone number listed above for Morgan Lawn Care and got a message. I left
a message for Scott to call me but he never did. Due to scheduling, this case was forwarded to
Agent Brian Baker of OISC.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Date: August 25, 2015
4. On August 25, 2015, I, Agent Brian Baker, was assigned to this case. On August 26, 2015, I went
to Morgan Lawn Care and made contact with Mr. Scott Morgan. I identified myself verbally and
with OISC credentials. I stated the purpose of my visit and issued Mr. Morgan a Notice of
Inspection. Mr. Morgan apologized for missing his appointment with Mr. Saxton. Mr. Morgan told
me he was sure he mailed in all his renewal fees for 2015. I told Mr. Morgan he was correct but
added his certification had expired and he had no continuing credit hours (CCH) on record. I
explained to Mr. Morgan that he had to retest since he did not have the CCH’s. Mr. Morgan told
me he was not aware of that and that he would take care of that at once.
5. I asked Mr. Morgan how many pesticide applications he had made so far in 2015. Mr. Morgan said
that he had a few customers he made applications for but the bulk of his business was mowing
only. I told Mr. Morgan I would need a list of the pesticide applications he made and told him there
was a civil penalty attached to daily applications made without being licensed. Mr. Morgan told me
he was completely unaware of that information. I told Mr. Morgan the information is on the OISC
website and quite normally covered in the regulatory portions of CCH programs. A quick call to
Page 1 of 2
the Licensing branch at OISC revealed Mr. Morgan had paid all renewal fees and they were being
held pending his successful completion of the core and category 3B exams. I provided the
necessary information to Mr. Morgan on how to obtain the study materials needed to take the two
exams and how to find out the locations of test sites. Mr. Morgan told me he was going to drive to
Lafayette and pick up the study materials and take the first available exams. I issued a Stop Action
Order to Mr. Morgan and explained the order to him. The order will expire when he is properly
licensed. I also conducted a facility inspection of what little pesticide product Mr. Morgan had on
hand.
6. On August 26, 2015, later in the day, I received a call back from Mr. Morgan telling me he had
picked up the study materials and planned to take both exams the following day, August 27, 2015
at Purdue. Mr. Morgan also e-mailed me the list of pesticide spray applications he made for
calendar year 2015. The chart which follows is a record of those applications.
DATE OF THE
APPLICATION
3-28-15
PESTICIDE PRODUCT(S) APPLIED
Threesome
EPA Reg#86064-5
Active ingredient(s)=2,4-D,
mecoprop-p, dicamba
5-21-15
8-15-15
CUSTOMER NAME AND
ADDRESS
Kyle Steinmets
1226 E Hwy 136
Pittsboro, Indiana
Megan Morgan
4473 E. CR 550 N.
Pittsboro, Indiana
Bob Faris
5835 Essex Dr.
Pittsboro, Indiana
Vicki Green
4650 W. CR 650
North Salem, Indiana
“
“
7. I received a phone call from Mr. Morgan on August 28, 2015. Mr. Morgan was anxious to let me
know he had completed both tests on August 27, 2015, and he was told it would be graded by
September 14, 2015.
8. On Friday September 4, 2015, I received a call from OISC Licensing and was informed Mr.
Morgan had passed all his testing, paid his fees and was back in business. In this case there are
three days where unlicensed applications of pesticide products were made by Morgan Lawn Care.
Brian P. Baker
Investigator
DISPOSITION: Scott Michael Morgan was cited for three (3) violations of section 65(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 $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00
per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was reduced to $112.50. Consideration was
given to the fact Mr. Morgan cooperated during the investigation; corrective action was taken;
there was no previous history of similar nature and a good-faith effort to comply.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: September 23, 2015
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1267
Complainant:
Thomas Strehlow
2002 Pleasant Ridge Drive
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46819
317-291-9298
Respondent:
Kenneth Roe
2202 Pleasant Ridge Drive
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46819
260-622-7388
Not Licensed
1. On September 8, 2015, Thomas Strehlow contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist
(OISC) to report that Kenneth Roe had been operating a for-hire lawn care service without a
license. He alleged that his dog got covered with spray from an application Mr. Roe was
making to his next door neighbor’s lawn that day.
2. On September 9, 2015, I met with Mr. Strehlow at his home on a one-street housing addition
off State Road 1 in southern Allen County. Mr. Strehlow reported that Mr. Roe was spraying
along his neighbor’s fence and the product got on his dog. He reportedly cleaned up the dog
and noticed no ill effects from the dog being exposed to the spray. Mr. Strehlow stated Mr.
Roe had treated several lawns in the neighborhood and he did not believe Mr. Roe was
licensed.
3. I then went to the home of Mr. Roe and informed him of the complaint. He stated he was
retired and that he did treat his sister-in-law’s lawn next to Mr. Strehlow’s property as a
favor. I asked if he had treated other lawns in the neighborhood. Mr. Roe stated he was
often asked what he did to make his lawn look good and that he did make applications to help
his neighbors. I informed Mr. Roe that an applicator license and a business license from the
OISC are required when for-hire applications are made to the property of another. I
instructed Mr. Roe to cease making for-hire applications until he was properly licensed. As
we continued to discuss the situation, Mr. Roe admitted he had accepted money from some
of his neighbors for applying fertilizer and weed control to their lawns. He also indicated the
lawn he treated next to Mr. Strehlow’s property did not belong to his sister-in-law. Mr. Roe
reported he didn’t accept money from all of his neighbors when he made applications and
that he did not treat lawns or solicit business outside of the neighborhood. He later provided
a list of dates and properties where he made applications of fertilizer, pre-emergent herbicide
and/or broadleaf weed control.
4. I later received phone calls from two of homeowners in the neighborhood who had heard
about the complaint and subsequent investigation. Both men indicated Mr. Roe was a good
Page 1 of 2
neighbor and often helped them maintain their properties when they were physically unable
to do so.
5. Mr. Roe admitted to making lawn applications at eight properties in the neighborhood in
2015. He was paid for applications made on the following dates:
April 24
May 4
May 14
July 6
July 15
July 16
July 28
August 4
September 8
Lesco 3-Way Herbicide
Fertilizer with Dimension pre-emergent
Fertilizer only
Fertilizer only
Andrew R. Roth
Investigator
DISPOSITION: Kenneth Roe was cited for nine (9) counts of violation of section 65(9) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides/fertilizers for hire without
having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $2,250.00 (9
$225.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Roe cooperated during the investigation;
corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar nature and a good faith
effort to comply.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1307
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Scientific Services
Peter Richardson
1410 Winfield Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46222
317-658-5673
Certified Business
E. 146th Street and N. Pointe Boulevard
Noblesville, Indiana
Treatment Site
1. On September 17, 2015, I performed a routine pre-construction termite control treatment
(pre-treatment) inspection at E. 146th Street and N. Pointe Boulevard in Noblesville, Indiana.
According to the records obtained from Scientific Services, a pesticide application of 922
gallons of use dilution derived from Talstar Termiticide/Insecticide (EPA #279-3206;
active ingredient: bifenthrin) were applied at a rate of 0.12 %.
2. I met with Mr. Richardson at the site of the pre-treatment. He told me he applied a total of
922 gallons of Talstar for an inside vertical (116 gallons for 580 linear feet) and horizontal
(806 gallons for 16,125 square feet) pre-treatment. He provided me with a diagram of the
building in which he based his chemical calculations. He told me when he calculated the
linear feet; he used the overall perimeter measurements instead of the individual room
measurements. He obtained a measurement of 580 total linear feet. When I used the same
diagram, I measured it at more than 2000 linear feet. He admitted he made a huge mistake in
figuring the amount of chemical needed. He told me he made an inside application to the
rooms but did not use the rooms’ measurements to calculate the amount of chemical needed.
Using the correct linear feet and square feet measurements at one foot depth-to-footer, the
amount of chemical needed for a by-the-label treatment of Talstar at 0.12% dilution rate
would be:
= 806.25 gallons
= 400.00 gallons
= 1206.25 gallons
3. The Talstar label states in part, “Vertical barriers must be established in areas such as
around the base of foundations, plumbing, utility entrances, back-filled soil against
Page 1 of 2
foundations walls and other critical areas….for a 0.06% rate apply 4 gallons of dilution per
10 linear feet per foot of depth”.
4. Based on the above calculations, Mr. Richardson applied 76% of the required chemical and is
therefore in violation of the Talstar label.
Kevin W. Gibson
DISPOSITION: Peter Richardson was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates. A
civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case 2015/1338
Complainant:
(765) 494-1585
Respondent:
Rural King
2401 E. Wabash Street
Frankfort, Indiana
(765) 659-9321
1. On September 29, 2015, I Agent Brian Baker of OISC conducted a Market Place Inspection of
the Rural King store listed as the respondent in this case.
2. I met with the store assistant Manager Brandon Jewell. I identified myself verbally and with
OISC credentials. I explained the scope of a Market Place Inspection and issued a Notice of
Inspection. I was pointed to the areas of the store where pesticide products were stored and
displayed for sale. I checked all the pesticide products displayed for sale in the store and
found all to be properly registered, properly labeled and free of leaks.
3. I purchased a 40 oz. bottle of Bayer Advanced Complete Brand Insect for Soil and Turf
(concentrate) EPA Reg. #72155-29, active ingredient=beta cyfluthrin .36%, imidacloprid
.72%. The purchased pesticide was tagged and turned into the OISC Formulation Laboratory
for analysis. The store manager Brandon Jewell signed the Pesticide Sample Collection
Report acknowledging the purchase.
4. I checked the seed and feed storage/display areas and observed several tamper resistant bait
stations for rodenticide. While checking the bait stations, I located one which had been
wedged between two wooden pallets (figs. 1-3). It appeared the force applied in the placement
of the pallet resulted in forcing the lid of the bait station open, exposing the rodenticide. The
pesticide product placed in the bait stations by store Management personnel is:
• Motomco Tomcat All-Weather Bait Chunx, EPA Reg. #12455-80-3240, active
ingredient=diphacinone .005%
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
• Figures 1-3 are a feed storage and display area in the Rural King listed as the respondent
in this case.
Page 1 of 2
5. I showed Mr. Jewell the broken bait station with the exposed rodenticide. The bait station was
collected up and properly disposed of. I told Mr. Jewell the easily accessible rodenticide was a
violation of the label directions for the pesticide product listed in paragraph 4 of this report. I
pointed out the label for Tomcat All Weather Bait Chunx was very specific about keeping the
rodenticide out of the reach of children and pets. NOTE: The Rural King Stores allow
customers to bring their pets into the store while shopping.
6. The label for Tomcat All Weather Bait Chunx reads in part:
KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN
CAUTION
IMPORTANT: “Do not expose children, pets, or other nontarget animals to rodenticides. To
help prevent accidents”:
2. “Apply bait in locations out of the reach of children, pets, domestic animals and nontarget
wildlife, or in tamper resistant bait stations. These stations must be resistant to destruction by
dogs and by children under six years of age, and must be used in a manner that prevents such
children from reaching into bait compartments and obtaining bait”.
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS
CAUTION
“Keep away from humans, domestic animals and pets. If swallowed, this material may reduce
the clotting ability of the blood and cause bleeding”.
7. In this case, Management employees of the Rural King store listed as the respondent in this
case, made a pesticide application using the pesticide product (rodenticide) listed in paragraph
4 of this report. The rodenticide was placed in a tamper resistant bait station and it appeared
an employee placing a wooden pallet of feed product in place with a pallet jack or forklift,
wedged the bait station between two wooden pallets which caused the plastic lid to break open
and expose the rodenticide to customers and their pets. The store management corrected the
violation on the spot.
Brian P. Baker
DISPOSITION: Rural King was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding the secure placement of a
rodenticide. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact there was potential for human harm.
As of March 9, 2016, Rural King had not paid the civil penalty. The case was forwarded to
collections.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: October 9, 2015
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2015/1379
Complainant:
Jenny Merrell
Cat 7A, 7B
Ray’s Termite & Pest Control
P.O. Box 197
Bismarck, IL 61814
217-759-8326
Licensed Business
Respondent:
Ray Gash
Cat 7B
Bernie Brewer
R & A Termite & Pest Control
P.O. Box 177
Alvin, IL 61811
217-474-5164
No certification
Licensed Business
CVS Pharmacy
1404 Blackiston Mill Road
Clarksville, Indiana 47129
1. On September 29, 2015, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information
from Jenny Merrell that R & A Termite & Pest Control was scheduled to perform a preconstruction termite treatment on September 30, 2015, at 2:00pm for Gilliatte Construction at
a new CVS site in Clarksville, Indiana and she was concerned the treatment would not be
performed according to label directions.
2. On September 30, 2015, I arrived at approximately 12:30 p.m. and parked west across the
street from the CVS site. I was equipped with two cameras; one for still pictures the other to
get limited video. A short time later, I noticed Jenny Merrell parked near my location in the
same parking area. Mrs. Merrell was equipped with a video camera. The CVS site was still
being prepared by construction workers as they were pouring and compacting aggregate
within the foundation walls. See figure 1. At 12:55 p.m. two (2) red trucks arrived on the
CVS site bearing the logo for R & A Termite & Pest Control. One truck was occupied by
Ray Gash, the other truck was driven by Bernie Brewer. The following is a brief timeline of
events and observations:
A. 1:05 p.m. both Ray and Bernie left the site.
B. 1:45 p.m. Ray and Bernie returned to the site and began making the pre-construction
termite application. See figures 2-3.
C. 2:16 p.m. both Ray and Bernie completed the application.
D. 2:20 p.m. Ray went into the Gilliate’s contractor’s trailer.
E. 2:27 p.m. Ray and Bernie left the CVS site.
Page 1 of 5
Observations
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Ray made the application wearing a short sleeved shirt. See figure 2.
Construction workers remained on site in the area of the application. See figure 4.
R & A vehicles are equipped with one 100 gallon tank each. See figure 5.
I did not observe the mixing of any product.
I did not observe the refilling of the white 100 gallon tanks.
I did not observe the vertical application of termiticide next to the foundation wall.
Ray and Bernie only applied liquid to the horizontal surface within the foundation walls
of the CVS site.
Figure 1-Worker preparing the site
Figure 2-Ray Gash on CVS site
Figure 3-Bernie Brewer on CVS site
Figure 4-Workers on site during app.
Figure 5-White 100 gallon tanks
3. On September 30, 2015, at 2:30pm, I met with Michael Cardwell, Project Supervisor for
Gilliatte in Gilliatte’s contractor trailer on the CVS site. Mr. Cardwell stated the CVS site
was approximately 13,225 square feet with a two foot depth-to-footer. Mr. Cardwell stated
Mr. Gash was awarded the pretreat contract on September 29, 2015. He further stated this
was the only day (September 30th) of application and it was his understanding the preconstruction termite control application was now complete. Mr. Cardwell stated the concrete
would be poured on October 1, 2015, at 4:00 a.m. Mr. Cardwell provided me with the
contact information for Jeff Lewis, Project Manager for Gilliatte, who could provide me with
site plans for the CVS construction.
4. Prior to leaving the CVS site, Jenny Merrell gave me the SD card from her video camera of
the application she captured on her video camera.
Page 2 of 5
5. On September 30, 2015, Jeff Lewis provided me with an e-mail copy of the site plans.
6. I calculated from the site plans the estimated amount of use dilution to be applied at the CVS
site on September 30, 3015.
A. Horizontal barrier – 13,225 square feet x one gallon per ten square feet = 1323 total
gallons at normal rate (0.06%) or 662 gallons at double the concentration and half the
volume of water (0.12%).
B. Vertical barrier – 453 linear feet x four gallons per ten linear feet x two feet depth-tofooter = 362 total gallons at normal rate (0.06%) or 181 gallons at double the
concentration and half the volume of water (0.12%).
C. Total amount of finished gallons to be applied to CVS site = 1685 gallons (0.06%) or 842
total gallons at double the concentration and half the volume of water (0.12%).
7. On October 2, 2015, I sent an email to the email address for R & A Termite and Pest Control,
[email protected], requesting all required documentation for the pre-construction
termite treatment at the CVS site in Clarksville, Indiana on September 30, 2015.
8. On October 2, 2015, I received from Ms. Charlie Johnson of R & A Termite & Pest Control a
copy of the Termite Pretreat Service Report, Technician Checklist, and contractor’s site plan.
The Termite Pretreat Service Report signed by Ray Gash listed the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Application date - 9-30-15
Time on site -12:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Techs – Ray Gash and Bernie Brewer
Contractor -“Gillette” with Clarksville, IN address
Applied -Talstar, EPA Reg. #279-3206 at 0.12%
Rate of equipment – 3 gals per minute
Horizontal app – 658 total gallons
Vertical app – 188 total gallons
Total gallons for job – 846 gallons
9. On October 6, 2015, I contacted Ray Gash to question him regarding the volume
discrepancies regarding his pre-construction termiticide application to the CVS site in
Clarksville, Indiana on September 30, 2015 regarding the amount he applied and labeldirected rates. The following is a summary of the questions and answers with Ray Gash.
A. I questioned Mr. Gash on each item on his Termite Pretreat Service Report.
Time on site – Mr. Gash corrected to 12:00pm to 4:00pm
Confirmed - He and Bernie Brewer made the termiticide application, used Talstar
at the double rate of 0.12%, which required 846 total gallons. He also confirmed
they had two, one hundred gallon tanks that applied at a rate of three gallons per
minute.
B. When questioned, Mr. Gash stated he could not remember or had no response to the
following:
i. Where did you mix product?
ii. How many times did you refill your tank?
iii. Were workers on site?
iv. What person protective equipment did you have?
v. Did you notify OISC of application?
Page 3 of 5
10. I questioned Mr. Gash if he had billed or planned to bill the contractor for the full amount of
the application. Mr. Gash stated he would be billing Gilliatte for the full amount of the
application.
11. I explained to Mr. Gash that I was present at the CVS site on September 30, 2015. I
informed Mr. Gash he was only on the CVS site for approximately 31 minutes and only
“sprayed” liquid to the horizontal surface. I confronted Mr. Gash directly about not being on
site more than 31 minutes and not putting down 846 total gallons but rather approximately
200 gallons. Mr. Gash responded by saying, “Yea”. Mr. Gash did not refute the allegations
further.
12. On October 26, 2015, I received a call from Ray Gash. Mr. Gash stated he spoke with Jeff
Lewis of Gilliatte Construction and was not going to bill the company. Furthermore, Mr.
Gash stated he would be closing R & A Termite & Pest control January 1, 2016. Mr. Gash
sent a signed statement stating his intentions. In addition, Mr. Gash stated he did not apply
all of the label required termiticide to the CVS site. He admitted he was not on site for the
four hours he reported on his paperwork.
13. Label language for Talstar (EPA Reg. #279-3206, active ingredient bifenthrin) states in part,
“All pesticide handlers (mixers, loaders and applicators) must wear long-sleeved shirt and
long pants, socks, shoes, and chemical-resistant gloves”. Furthermore, the label states, “Do
not allow people or pets on treated surfaces until spray has dries”. . . “Do not apply at a
lower dosage and/or concentration than specified on this label for applications prior to the
installation of the finished grade” . . . “Create a horizontal barrier wherever treated soil will
be covered by a slab, such as footing trenches, slab floors, carports, and the soil beneath
stairs and crawl spaces” . . . “Vertical barriers must be established in areas such as around
the base of foundations, plumbing, utility entrances, back-filled soil against foundation walls
and other critical areas.”
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
DISPOSITION: Ray Gash was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding the use of personal
protective equipment.
Ray Gash was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application
Law for failure to follow label directions regarding allowing people in the treated area before the
spray has dried. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact there was potential for human harm.
Law for failure to follow label directions regarding application rates. A civil penalty in the
amount of $500.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this was
his second violation of similar nature. See case number 2014/1253.
Law for making false or fraudulent records, invoices, or reports. As a result of this citation as
Page 4 of 5
well as the above citations, in addition to the $750.00 civil penalty, all pesticide certifications
and licenses of Ray Gash; and business license of R & A Termite & Pest Control, were revoked.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: November 17, 2015
CC
Jeff Lewis
2515 Bloyd Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46218
317-638-3355
Page 5 of 5
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0246
Complainant: Roderick Getts
1727 S Lincoln
Peru, Indiana 46970
765-681-1020
Respondent: Smith Landscape and Lawn Care
Matt Smith, Certified Applicator 3b
Kevin Ramer, Unlicensed Applicator
2144 W Airport Road
Peru, IN 46970
765-469-9860
NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS (1/8/16)
2376 Shadowbrook Drive
Peru, Indiana 46970
1. On, October 6, 2015, the complainant contacted the Compliance Officer of the Indiana State Chemist
(OISC) to report a problem with a local lawn care company. He stated the Home Owners Association
(HOA) hired an unknown lawn care company to treat the HOA and now he has pesticide exposure
symptoms to his strawberries and flowers. He stated the lawn care company does not have any type of
logo on the side of their trucks. He also stated he resides in the Grissom Air Force Base complex.
2. On October 7, 2015, I met with Mrs. Christina Getts, the wife of the complainant. Mrs. Getts explained
that the Eagle Pointe HOA hired an unknown contractor who performed three ‘lawn care applications’
throughout the year at her residence. She stated the contractor made a pesticide application in June
near her strawberry patch and drifted onto it. She said that she and her husband got sick after eating the
strawberries, and she also noticed ‘chemical burns’ on the hostas. Mrs. Getts then proceeded to show
me her strawberry patch and the dark spotting on the leaves and the dead matter underneath the plants.
In addition, she showed me some browning on her hostas and a lilac bush.
3. Upon observing the property, it appeared the lawn care contractor had applied a non-selective herbicide
to trim the landscape bed. It did not look like there had been a broadcast lawn care application. There
was a defined patch of dead turf near the edge of the landscape bed. Upon observing the strawberries
and hostas, I did see some spotting. However, this spotting was prominent all through the property
even in areas not immediately adjacent to where the application occurred. It appeared most of the
symptoms were related to the time of year, fall, as opposed to a herbicide drift or overspray.
Fig 1: Landscape beds
Fig 2: Strawberry plants
Fig 3: Herbicide
application
Page 1 of 2
Fig 4: Hostas apart from
application area with
Dieback symptoms
4. After evaluating the area of concern, I determined the best sample would be a variety of clippings from
the strawberry patch, lilac bush, and hostas for submission to the Purdue Plant and Pest Diagnostic
Laboratory (PPDL).
5. I then went to the HOA/ clubhouse for the Estates at Eagle’s Pointe. I spoke with Frank Sheppard, the
property manager. I explained the complaint to him. He stated Smith Landscape and Lawn Care made
the pesticide applications to the home perimeters and sidewalks for control of weeds three times a year
in the HOA.
6. I then contacted Mr. Matt Smith via telephone. He stated he was in the area, so I met with Mr. Smith. I
explained the situation to him. He stated Kevin Ramer sprayed glyphosate at the Getts’ property three
times during the spring and summer to control weeds next to the landscape border. I then gave Mr.
Smith a Pesticide Investigation Inquiry and asked him to complete and return the form to me.
7. The Diagnosis and Control Recommendation from the PPDL for the vegetation samples submitted
stated:
“The symptoms on the samples and images are not indicative of Glyphosate damage.” Travis Legleiter
Weed Science Program Specialist
“The foliar discoloration on the strawberry leaves is due to a fungal disease and the hosta and lilac are
exhibiting symptoms typical of environmental leaf scorch.”
Gail Ruhl
Plant Disease Diagnostician
8. According to the information received from Kevin Ramer and Matt Smith, Mr. Ramer applied Drexel
Imitator Plus (AI: glyphosate, EPA Registration #19713-526) on August 24, 2015, to the Getts’
property. Additionally, Mr. Ramer also made two other applications, one in the end April and the other
in mid-June, at the Getts’ property. Although Mr. Ramer was a registered technician in 2014 for Smith
Landscape and Lawn Care, he did not have a current license in 2015. Mr. Smith acknowledged in a
previous phone conversation that he was not on site supervising Mr. Ramer during the application.
Elizabeth C. Carter
Investigator
Disposition: Matt Smith was cited for three (3) counts of violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-2-3, for failure to provide on-site supervision for a nonlicensed employee. A civil penalty in the amount of $375.00 (3 counts x $125.00 per count) was assessed.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0252
Complainant:
(765) 494-1585
Respondent:
Rural King
1807 N. Broadway Avenue
Greensburg, Indiana
(812) 663-8200
1. On October 9, 2015, I, Agent Brian Baker of OISC, conducted a Market Place Inspection at
the Rural King Store listed as the respondent in this case.
2. I met with store manager Debbie Clemons. I identified myself to her verbally and with OISC
credentials. I stated the purpose of my visit and issued a Notice of Inspection. I told Mrs.
Clemons I would be checking pesticide products offered for sale in the store and I would also
be checking the store’s pesticide program, specifically the use of rodenticides. Mrs. Clemons
told me the staff at the store placed the rodenticide in bait stations both inside and outside the
business.
3. I started the Market Place Inspection by checking the pesticide storage and display area in the
farming section. I located five containers, four without the label booklet and one with no
label at all (figs 1-3) that had a sales sticker below indicating it was 2,4-D ester gallon LV4. I
removed the items from the display shelf and they were taken into a storage area. The
container with no labeling was cross-checked by lot# and a new label was placed on it. The
booklets for the other four will have to be sent for.
Fig. 1
•
•
•
•
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Figure 1 is the pesticide product container with no labeling.
Figure 2 is three pesticide product containers with back labels and no label booklets.
Figure 3 is a pesticide product container without the label booklet.
Figure 4 is a bird feeder used for dispensing rodenticides.
4. The store Managers and personnel worked quickly to correct the display of improperly
labeled pesticide. I checked the rodenticide bait stations in the feed and seed areas and found
Page 1 of 2
all to be in good working order. While checking the perimeter of the storage area, I located
two metal bird feeders pushed under shelfing units. I had Store Manager Jay Kell look at the
bird feeders and he was puzzled as to why they were under the shelves. I told Mr. Kell we
have found them to contain liquid rodenticides in the past and I was certain if I collected and
tested it that would be the case. Mr. Kell did not dispute what I told him but told me he had
inherited things like this when he and other new management personnel took over at the
Greensburg location. Mr. Kell told me he was unaware of the presence of the bird feeders
and added he would get someone in the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) and get
the bird feeders collected an disposed of properly.
5. In this case there are five pesticide product containers which were improperly labeled and
offered for sale and two metal bird feeders used to dispense rodenticides. It should be noted
the store Management and Staff worked quickly to correct what was wrong. Since the
Management personnel were in charge of their own rodenticide bait program and all of the
bait stations were serviceable and secure, it is possible they were unaware of some previous
wrong doing with the applications of rodenticides in bird feeders.
Brian P. Baker
Investigator
Disposition: Rural King was cited for violation of section 57(4) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for offering for sale a pesticide a product that did not have a label with the
required information. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed.
As of March 9, 2016, Rural King had not paid the civil penalty. The case was forwarded to
collections.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: October 27, 2015
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0395
Complainant:
765-494-1585
Respondent:
Mahogany Pest Control
Dan Collester
4936 S. Walcott Street
317-225-9838
Nathan Todd
Jackson Realty & Builders
6900 Gray Road
317-371-1899
940 Baden Manor Boulevard
Certified Business
Contractor
Treatment Site
1. On November 2, 2015, I performed a routine pre-construction termite control treatment (pretreatment) inspection at 940 Baden Manor Boulevard in Indianapolis, Indiana. According to
the records received from Mahogany Pest Control, a pesticide application of 305 gallons of
Talstar P Termiticide/Insecticide (EPA #279-3206; active ingredient: bifenthrin) was
made at a rate of 0.06 % dilution.
2. I spoke with and issued a Notice of Inspection (NOI) to Mr. Collester of Mahogany Pest
Control. He told me he applied a total of 305 gallons of Talstar for horizontal (305 gallons
for 3056 square feet) pre-treatment. He told me he calculated the linear feet at 350, but failed
to make an inside vertical pesticide application as required by the Talstar label. He said he
usually reads the label thoroughly but somehow he must have missed the portion for the
inside vertical treatment. Using the correct linear feet and square feet measurements at one
foot depth-to-footer, the amount of chemical needed for a by-the-label treatment of Talstar
at 0.06% dilution rate would be:
350 inside linear feet x four gallons per 10 linear feet
Page 1 of 2
= 305.6 gallons
= 140.0 gallons
= 445.6 gallons
3. The Talstar label states in part, “Vertical barriers must be established in areas such as
around the base of foundations, plumbing, utility entrances, back-filled soil against
foundations walls and other critical areas….for a 0.06% rate apply 4 gallons of dilution per
10 linear feet per foot of depth”.
4. Mr. Collester was in violation of the Talstar label when he did not make an inside vertical
treatment. He used a total of 305 gallons of 0.06% dilution or 68% of the total chemical
needed to make a by-the-label treatment of Talstar.
Kevin W. Gibson
DISPOSITION: Dan Collester was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directed application rates. A civil
penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0404
Complainant:
Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
800-893-6637
Dealer:
Petco
10025 North Michigan Street
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 337-9505
Registrant:
Garmon Corporation
Rodrigo Cruz
27461 Via Industria
Temecula, CA 92590
1. On August 5, 2015, I performed a routine marketplace inspection at Petco in Carmel,
Indiana. I spoke with the Manager, Jucinda Martin.
2. Upon reviewing the pesticides available for sale at Petco, I found two products, Natur Vet
Herbal Flea Powder and Natur Vet Herbal Flea Spray that appeared to be state unregistered.
I then collected a sample of both products. I attached a sample collection number of 20150925 to the Powder and 2015-0926 to the Spray. (These samples were originally collected
under case number 2015/1188.)
Fig 1: Powder Front
Fig 2: Powder Back
Page 1 of 2
Fig 3: Spray Front
Fig 4: Spray Back
3. Later that same day, I submitted the samples to the OISC Formulation Lab for documentary
purposes.
4. On November 13, 2015, the Pesticide Products Manager, Ed White, confirmed the two
pesticides were not state registered.
Elizabeth C. Carter
DISPOSITION: Garmon Corporation was cited for two (2) violations of section 57(1) of the
Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for distributing pesticides not registered in the state of
Indiana. A civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count) was
assessed.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0433
Complainant:
Lafayette, Indiana 47907
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Terminix
Travis Crane
Dustin Banning
1456 S. Liberty Drive
Bloomington, IN 47403
812-331-4453
Licensed Business
Registered Technician
Certified Supervisor
1. On October 20, 2015, Terminix (Bloomington, IN) submitted documentation to the office of
Indiana State Chemist (OISC) the intent to perform a termite control pre-construction
pesticide application located at 1250 N. National Road in Columbus, Indiana (47202) for a
Chick-Fil-A restaurant.
2. On December 3, 2015, I met with Dustin Banning, Branch Operations Manager for Terminix,
at their Bloomington, Indiana branch. Mr. Banning presented me with some paperwork of
the pesticide pre-construction termite control treatment showing Travis Crane (Registered
Technician) made a pesticide application on October 21, 2015, at the Chick-Fil-A site in
Columbus, Indiana, using 150 total gallons of use dilution derived from Termidor SC (EPA
Reg. #7969-210, active ingredient fipronil). Additional documentation provided showed the
site to be 5,428 linear feet. However, a crude graph diagram illustrated the structure to be
“46 X 118” (no units given). Mr. Banning stated the site was actually 5,428 square feet with
a footer depth of one foot. Mr. Banning stated this account was a Terminix National account
and the complete record was housed elsewhere. Mr. Banning stated he would contact
Terminix’s National account for the complete record.
3. On December 4, 2015, I met with Jeffrey Kennedy, Project Superintendent for W. H. Bass
Inc. contractor for the Chick-Fil-A site in Columbus, Indiana. Mr. Kennedy stated Terminix
completed the termite treatment on October 21, 2015. Mr. Kennedy stated Terminix made
the pesticide application prior to the concrete being poured. Mr. Kennedy stated the site
measured approximately 5,400 square feet with a 3.6 depth to footer. Mr. Kennedy let me
photograph a form he received from Mr. Crane on the day of the application. The Terminix
form listed as, “Terminix WDO Application and Termite Insulation Service Record”, shows
Mr. Crane applied 150 total gallons of Termidor SC at 0.06% to area of 5,428 square feet.
Mr. Kennedy allowed me to photograph his contractor’s specifications prints to determine
square footage and linear footage of the site. Mr. Kennedy disclosed Mr. Banning was on
site December 3, 2015, measuring the site.
Page 1 of 4
4. From the contactor’s specification prints, I made the approximate calculations for the total
amount of Termiticide to be applied at label directions to the Chick-Fil-A site:
A. Horizontal barrier – 5,463 square feet x one gallon per ten square feet = 546 total gallons
at normal rate (0.06%).
B. 288 linear feet x four gallons per ten linear feet x 3.6 feet depth-to-footer = 415 total
gallons at normal rate (0.06%).
C. Total amount of finished gallons to be applied to Chick-Fil-A site = 961 gallons (0.06%).
5. On December 7, 2015, I spoke with Mr. Banning. Mr. Banning stated he spoke with Mr.
Crane regarding the 150 total gallons (~16% of label-directed application rate) applied to the
Chick-Fil-A site. Mr. Banning stated Mr. Crane told him the site had hard packed gravel
resulting in the product pooling on the surface. However, Mr. Banning stated Mr. Crane
failed to tell or report the problem to him at the time. Mr. Banning stated he was at the site
December 3, 2015, re-measuring to create the paperwork that was not done on October 21,
2015. I explained to Mr. Banning that termiticide application paperwork is to be created
within thirty (30) days from the date of application. Re-creating the paperwork puts the
paperwork past the 30 day mark. Mr. Banning stated he could not fix the application
problems from October 21, 2015; however, he wanted to make sure the paperwork was
correct from the point he was made aware of the problem.
6. Label language for Termidor SC (EPA Reg. #7969-210) states in part, “Do not apply at a
dosage and/or concentration lower than Termidor SC at 0.06% for applications up to and
including installation of the final grade.” Additional label language states in part, “Effective
pre-construction termite control is achieved by establishing a thorough and complete
horizontal and vertical treated zone…”. “HORIZONTAL TREATED ZONES - Apply an
overall treatment of Termidor SC to the entire surface to be covered beneath the concrete
slab . . . Make this treatment at the rate of 1-1.5 gallons of finished dilution per 10 square
feet.” VERTICAL TREATED ZONES – Apply Termidor SC termiticide/insecticide at rate
of 1 gallon of finished dilution/square foot around anything penetrating the slab (e.g. utility
services, plumbing lines) and at 4 gallons of finished dilution per 10 linear feet per foot of
depth along the inside and outside perimeter of foundation walls.”
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
DISPOSITION:
A. Travis Crane was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates. Based on the
egregiousness of the violation by applying less than 50% of a by-the-label treatment, the
technician registration issued to Travis Crane was revoked.
B. Dustin Banning was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates. A civil penalty in the
amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Based on the egregiousness of the
violation by applying less than 50% of a by-the-label treatment, the applicator certification
Page 2 of 4
issued to Dustin Banning was modified to prohibit supervision of registered technicians in
the performance of termiticide applications.
C. In addition, the business license issued to Terminix of Bloomington, Indiana was modified to
prohibit preconstruction termite control treatments.
D. At the request of Terminix, an informal conference was held on January 11, 2016, at the
Terminix branch in Bloomington. Representing Terminix were Tony Bohnert, Dustin
Banning and Russell May. Representing OISC were Jay Kelley and George Saxton.
E. During the conference, Terminix representatives posited that:
a. This was a corporate sale with little paperwork and no diagram;
b. This was registered technician Travis Crane’s first solo pretreat since he has only
been with the company 4 or 5 months so he was put in a situation in which he
should not have been;
c. The original certified supervisor, Rich Austra, was on vacation so certified
applicator Dustin Banning was filling in;
d. Dustin did not inspect the site before the treatment;
e. The soil was compacted over 99% and the termiticide was puddling;
f. The inside vertical depth-to-footer was actually one foot and the footer itself was
2.6 feet deep, although they admitted there was no inside vertical treatment
performed.
g. The top of the footing was exposed on the inside vertical and a 2010 label was
used that states in part, “Rod holes should not extend below the top of the
footing.”
F. OISC representatives posited that:
a. Since this was a corporate sale with no diagram and new employee Travis Crane’s
first solo treatment, even more reason a site visit should have been performed by
the supervising certified applicator;
b. Even though there was considerable soil compaction, allowing some of the
chemical to soak into the soil and returning a few minutes later to finish would
have been a viable option.
c. Registered technician Travis Crane may be less culpable than indicated during the
original investigation.
G. In order to remedy the discrepancies in this treatment, Terminix stated they would:
a. Extend the warranty to Chick-Fil-A;
b. Site visit and diagram treatment areas when they receive a treatment order from
corporate;
c. Send Travis Crane back through classroom and field training;
d. Send Dustin Banning through the next 7b training session at Purdue.
H. It should be noted that after review of the 2010 label supplied by Terminix, the label also
states in part, “When the top of the footing is exposed, the applicator must treat the soil
adjacent to the footing to a depth not to exceed the bottom of the footing. However, in no
case should a structure be treated below the footing.”
Page 3 of 4
I. Based on information received at the informal conference, it was determined that:
a. The civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 would still be assessed;
b. The technician registration of Travis Crane would not be revoked;
c. The certification of Dustin Banning would be modified to prohibit supervision of
registered technicians until such time as he attends the 7b training program at
Purdue;
d. The business license of Terminix of Bloomington will be modified to require all
preconstruction termite control treatments to be performed by fully certified
individuals;
e. The warranty for Chick-Fil-A would be extended to seven (7) years;
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
CC
Jeffrey Kennedy – Project Supervisor
W.H. Bass, Inc.
11300 Johns Creek Parkway, Suite 100
Duluth, GA 30097
770-490-7375
Chick-Fil-A, Inc.
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, GA 30349
Page 4 of 4
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0481
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Arrow Termite & Pest Control
1050 N. Congress Avenue
Evansville, IN 47715
Derrick Word
812-423-3938
(Licensed Business)
(Certified Applicator)
1. On December 8, 2015, the Office of Indiana State Chemist received anonymous information
alleging a new construction building located on Baseline Road in Evansville, Indiana, may
have had a termite pretreatment completed to the structure using less than label required
amount of termiticide solution.
2. I was able to learn through the contractor for the building in question they were using Arrow
Termite & Pest Control for the termite pretreatment applications. I contacted Derrick Word,
Manager of Arrow. Mr. Word informed me he had made a termiticide application on
October 22, 2015, to a section of the buildings, but was unable to locate any documentation
he had reported the application to OISC (before or after). I informed Mr. Word OISC also
did not have any record of the application being reported as required. No label violations
were discovered.
Scott M Farris
Investigator
DISPOSITION: Arrow Termite & Pest Control was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2-(6), for failure to
notify OISC in advance of the preconstruction termite control treatment. A civil penalty in
the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 1 of 1
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0491
Complainant:
765-494-1585
Respondent:
Helena Chemical Company, Inc.
1732 E. Hupp Road
Laporte, Indiana 46350
219-363-2083
Licensed Pesticide Business
1. On January 6, 2016, Ken Neuhoff and Trish Waller conducted a Container/Containment
inspection at Helena Chemical Company, Inc., 1732 Hupp Road, Laporte, Indiana. We
observed the following:
• The firm was not documenting pressure test on refillable containers and were not
keeping a record.
• The firm made a fertilizer application with an untrained/uncertified applicator.
• The firm did not have Cat 14 training records.
• Refillable cage tanks used for bulk chemicals were not permanently identified with an
ID code/number.
2. We collected the following information/evidence to document the violations listed above.
• Photograph of refillable container missing ID code/number and pressure testing (See
Figure #1)
Figure #1
•
Photographs of refillable containers missing pressure testing (See Figure #2, Figure
#3, and Figure #4)
Page 1 of 2
Figure #2
Figure #3
Figure #4
•
Collected a copy of a fertilizer application from an untrained/uncertified applicator
3. A stop action order was issued to Mike Ault, (manager) stating that no repackaging of
pesticides can take place until the refillable tanks are permanently identified, pressure tested,
and the pressure test date is placed on the tanks and that no fertilizer application or delivery
can be made by any one that is not either category 14 licensed or trained and supervised by a
category 14 licensed person at the plant.
Kenneth Neuhoff & Tricia Waller
Inspectors
DISPOSITION: Helena Chemical Company Inc. was warned for violation of section 57(9) of
the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for distributing a pesticide in violation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by distributing a pesticide in a container
that had not been pressure tested and did not contain proper identification. Consideration was
given to the fact this was their first violation of similar nature.
Helena Chemical Company was cited for violation of section 44 of the Indiana Commercial
Fertilizer Law, specifically 355 IAC 7-3-4, for failure to properly supervise an uncertified
fertilizer applicator. A civil penalty in the amount of $125.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2016/0517
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Brad Allen
Harrison Lake Country Club
588 S. Country Club Road
Columbus, IN 47201
812-342-6132
1. On February 3, 2016, I conducted a routine inspection at Harrison Lake Country Club with
Superintendent, Brad Allen.
2. Mr. Allen provided me with his pesticide application logs for 2014 and 2015. See figure 1.
Figure 1-2014 & 2015 pesticide logs
3. Upon review of Mr. Allen’s log books, I noticed not all the required elements for pesticide
recordkeeping where listed. Mr. Allen’s recordkeeping consisted of the following:
A. A dated lined sheet of paper with top corner highlight yellow. See figure 2.
B. Notation may state location (“Tees”, “Grns”, “FWYS”, “rough” or word “spray”). See
figure 3.
C. Notation may list product. See figure 2.
D. Notation may list rate. See figure 2.
Figure 2 & 3-Representative of most applications records
Page 1 of 2
4. I provided Mr. Allen with a copy of the sample golf course recordkeeping document from
OISC’s website. Mr. Allen stated he understood he was not required to use the OISC sample
recordkeeping document. I stated he was correct, but, he must document all the required
recordkeeping elements.
5. Mr. Allen failed to list all the required recordkeeping elements on the following days:
April 11, 2014
May 20, 2014
June 12, 2014
August 13, 2014
September 3, 2014
April 15, 2015
June 5, 2015
August 13, 2015
April 14, 2014
May 21, 2014
July 16, 2014
August 14, 2014
September 11, 2014
April 16, 2015
August 3, 2015
August 14, 2015
May 11, 2014
June 8, 2014
July 17, 2014
August 28, 2014
September 22, 2014
May 4, 2015
August 4, 2015
August 18, 2015
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
May 14, 2014
June 10, 2014
August 4, 2014
August 29, 2014
March 23, 2015
May 14, 2015
August 12, 2015
August 20, 2015
Date: February 9, 2016
DISPOSITION: Brad Allen was cited for thirty-two (32) counts of violation of section 65(6) of
the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for failure to
keep all mandatory record keeping elements. A civil penalty in the amount of $8,000.00 (32
$800.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Allen cooperated during the inspection;
corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar nature; no potential for
damage; a good-faith effort to comply and no restricted use pesticides were involved. In
addition, $500.00 was held in abeyance and will not be assessed provided Mr. Allen commits
no further violations of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for two years from
finalization of this investigation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist

Transcription

Similar documents

31977 US 20 East

Did you know? Senior Community Service

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist

a PDF - Center of Workforce Innovations

Delaware and Miami Indian Presentation

File - Indiana National Road Association

Homeowners Extra - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

Honesty is the - Franklin College

Financial Strength - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

David Bowden Joshua Conyers