case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist

Transcription

May 27, 2014
Tippecanoe County Cooperative Extension Service Office
3150 Sagamore Parkway South (U.S. 52)
Lafayette, IN 47905
DRAFT AGENDA
9:00 a.m.
1. Approval of the meeting agenda
2. Approval of previous meeting minutes (February 28, 2014)
3. Review of cases involving civil penalties since the last meeting
4. Plan for review of business license insurance requirement & discussion at next meeting
5. Implications of federal pollinator protection labeling to Indiana’s program & applicators
(Is Drift Watch part of the solution?)
6. Need for review of pesticide bulk storage and containment rules prior to sunset?
7. OISC comments on proposed revisions to U.S. EPA Worker Protection Standard rule
8. Review of common run-off language on pesticide labels; is it adequate?
1:00 p.m. Adjourn
A Summary of Cases
2013/0612
Disposition: EcoLab was cited for thirty-one (31) counts of violation of section
65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label
directions prohibiting indoor use. A civil penalty in the amount of $7,750.00 (31
counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed.
2013/0615
Disposition: Judith A. Walker was cited for violation 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 $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
It should be noted that at the time of this report, Ms. Walker had been
incarcerated in the Delaware County Jail for burglary causing injury; criminal
confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. Her
charging documents in this case were sent to the Delaware County Jail address
listed above.
This case was forwarded to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office for collection.
2013/0759
DISPOSITION: Bruce Gee was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding
restrictions on indoor applications. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was
assessed for this violation.
2013/0918
amount of $500.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the
fact this was her second violation of similar nature. See case number 2013/0615.
2013/0999
DISPOSITION: Judith A. Walker was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the
amount of $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to
the fact this is her third violation of similar nature.
2013/1000
the fact this is her fourth violation of similar nature.
2013/1001
the fact this is her fifth violation of similar nature.
2013/1002
the fact this is her sixth violation of similar nature.
2013/1004
the fact this is her seventh violation of similar nature.
2013/1006
DISPOSITION: Roger Doty 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. A civil penalty in the amount
of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact
there was a potential for human harm for an employee under his supervision.
Roger Doty was cited for 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 $125.00
was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Doty
received financial gain for this violation.
The total amount of civil penalty assessed for this investigation is $375.00.
2013/1017
DISPOSITION: Richard Nicpon 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 for this violation. However, the civil penalty was reduced to
$100.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Nicpon cooperated during the
investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of
similar nature; a good faith effort to comply and no restricted use pesticides were
involved.
2013/1022
Disposition: Samuel J. Mehringer was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
regarding drift to non-target areas. A civil penalty in the amount of $100.00 was
assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this was his second
violation of similar nature (see 2012/0660) and a restricted use pesticide was
involved.
2013/1050
the fact this is her eighth violation of similar nature.
2013/1051
the fact this is her ninth violation of similar nature.
2013/1052
DISPOSITION: Ryan Conyer was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to ensure the proper labeldirected use of personal protective equipment. Consideration was given to the fact
there was potential for human harm. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was
assessed.
Ryan Conyer was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-2-6, for failure to provide a
technician with label and a site assessment fact sheet.
2013/1078
the fact this is her eleventh violation of similar nature.
2013/1079
the fact this is her tenth violation of similar nature.
2013/1091
Disposition: Atlantis Pools & Spas was cited for violation of section 57(1) of the
Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for producing an unregistered pesticide
product. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Atlantis Pools & Spas was cited for violation of section 57(9) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for producing a pesticide at a federally unregistered
production facility, in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed
for this violation.
On September 27, 2013, Joe Becovitz participated in a meeting of the sales staff
at Alexander Chemical to provide compliance assistance to address these
violations from the supply side of the relationship between Alexander and
Atlantis.
2013/1119
Disposition: Barrett Brummett was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
regarding drift to people. 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 2009/0713) and there was potential
for human harm.
2013/1130
Disposition: Chris Babbin was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label language regarding
drift to people. 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.
2013/1145
Disposition: Dawn Fall was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana
Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-2-3, for failure to
properly supervise a non-licensed employee. A civil penalty in the amount of
$125.00 was assessed for this violation.
2013/1174
Disposition: Marc Weinkauf was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to insure the use of labelrequired personal protective equipment. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00
was assessed for this violation. Marc Weinkauf was cited for violation of section
65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to properly
supervise a non-licensed employee. A civil penalty in the amount of $125.00 was
Total amount of civil penalty assessed for this investigation is $375.00.
2013/1185
Disposition: Nicholas Yoder was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
regarding drift to a non-target site. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was
assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this was his third
violation of similar nature (See case numbers 2011/1312 and 2012/1006).
2013/1186
DISPOSITION: Donald Ross Golf Club was cited for eight (8) 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 $2,000.00 (8 counts
x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was reduced to
$600.00. Consideration was given to the fact Donald Ross Golf Club cooperated
during the investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous
history of similar nature and no restricted use pesticides were involved.
2013/1192
Disposition: Bruce McIntyre was cited for fifteen (15) counts of violation of
section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to
properly supervise a non-licensed employee. A civil penalty in the amount of
$1,875.00 was assessed for this violation. However, the civil penalty was reduced
to $1,406.25. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. McIntyre cooperated during
the investigation.
2013/1214
Disposition: Richard Jozwiak was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
regarding pesticide applications for bed bug treatment. A civil penalty in the
amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the
fact there was a potential for human harm.
2013/1374
DISPOSITION: C&T Lawn and Landscape was cited for violation of section
65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying
pesticides/fertilizer for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license.
A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
2013/1387
DISPOSITION: LuGene Links was cited for nineteen (19) 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 licensed
applicator. A civil penalty in the amount of $9,500.00 (19 counts x $500.00 per
count) was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is
their second violation of similar nature. See case number 2010/1188. However,
the civil penalty was reduced to $6,650.00. Consideration was given to the fact
LuGene Links cooperated during the investigation and no restricted use pesticides
were involved.
2013/1428
DISPOSITION: Richard Shamo was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
regarding ensuring the use of personal protective equipment and reentry into an
area where a pesticide application had occurred. A civil penalty in the amount of
$250.00 was assessed. Consideration was given to the fact there was a potential
for human harm to both Mr. Cruea and the golfers.
2014/0001
Disposition: Robert Lemmons was cited for four (4) counts of violation of section
65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 42-3, for failure to provide on-site supervision for a non-licensed employee. A civil
penalty in the amount of $500.00 (4 counts x $125.00 per count) was assessed.
However, the civil penalty was reduced to $250.00. Consideration was given to
the fact Mr. Lemmons cooperated during the investigation; corrective action was
taken; and no restricted use pesticides were involved. It was also a consideration
Mr. Lemmons gained financially due to this violation.
20140074
Disposition: Daniel Jenkins was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
termiticide application. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for
this violation.
2014/0372
Disposition: Francisco Lopez and Uriel Reyes were cited for violation of section
65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 41-2.1, for failure to follow examination procedures set forth by the Office of
Indiana State Chemist. As a result, neither Lopez nor Reyes will be allowed to
take a pesticide certification exam for a period of five (5) years from the date of
this report.
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/0612
Complainant:
Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 South University Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
800-893-6637
Applicator:
EcoLab Pest Elimination Inc.
David Limecooley
Daniel Adkins
Pok Song
Tim Privett
Jason Gerber
Mike Baldwin
Jeffery Christensen
Jeff Jester
Licensed Business
Certified Applicator
EcoLab Inc.
370 N. Wabasha St
St. Paul, MN 55102
800-325-1671
1. On July 20, 2011, a former certified applicator for EcoLab, Lisa Farrer, alleged that EcoLab
applicators made applications of Termidor (fipronil) to the interior of commercial businesses
contrary to label directions. See case summary 20111301.
2. In November of 2012, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) contacted Ecolab
requesting a list of commercial accounts from the northern branch of Ecolab to ensure that
the northern branch was complying with label directions for Termidor. On November 20,
2012, EcoLab submitted a spread sheet containing thirty five (35) commercial locations
EcoLab served. A random sample of seven (7) locations was selected from the list obtained
of the commercial accounts from the northern branch of Ecolab.
3. In January and February of 2013, Agent Kevin Gibson and Agent Andy Roth collected
environmental swab samples of the seven (7) randomly selected locations. OISC Residue
Lab positively detected the presence of fipronil, active ingredient in Termidor, in all seven
(7) locations.
4. On April 2, 2013, Agents George Saxton, Brian Baker, Bob Brewer, Kevin Gibson, Andy
Roth and I conducted interviews with the following Ecolab employees at the Grant County
Extension office located at 401 South Adams Street in Marion, Indiana (46953):
David Limecooley
Jason Gerber
Daniel Adkins
Pok Song
Mike Baldwin
Jeff Jester
Page 1 of 4
5. On April 2, 2013, none of the EcoLab employees offered any information or added insite into
how Termidor was found in seven (7) random sampled accounts. Furthermore, Pok Song
and Jason Gerber stated during their interview that they would not submit to a polygraph
examination because they were counseled by EcoLab’s attorney not to take one.
6. In May, June, and July of 2013, OISC investigators conducted investigations at fifty nine
(59) locations in Indiana.
7. I collected the following swab samples that were analyzed by OISC’s Residue Lab;
Business
Address
City
Results
La Quinta
Bird’s
Smokehouse
Iron Skillet
Holiday Inn
Express
Hacienda
Mexican RST
Holiday Inn
Express
Taco Bell
Wendy's
306 Touring DR
9008 S Walnut St
Auburn, IN
Daleville, IN
CONF
CONF
14000 W. SR 28
11205 Iselle Dr
CONF
CONF
3805 Lake City HWY
Gaston, IN
New Haven,
IN
Warsaw, IN
3825 Lake City HWY
Warsaw, IN
CONF
2924 Frontage Rd
3356 Lake City HWY
Warsaw, IN
Warsaw, IN
Applebees
Wilbys Gas n
Noodles
Marathon
Ryans
Cracker Barrel
Gas America
Wilbys Gas n
Noodles
Millers Merry
Manor
Walmart
Brothers Mart
Wendy's
741 E Center St
1695 w Lake St
Warsaw, IN
Warsaw, IN
CONF
No
samples
BDL
CONF
190 Smaltz Way
1411 Shook Dr
1410 Shook Dr
100 E US 6
30 N SR-13
Auburn, IN
Auburn, IN
Auburn, IN
Ligonier, IN
Pierceton, IN
BDL
BDL
CONF
BDL
CONF
1367 S. Randolph St
Garrett, IN
CONF
Applebees
Speedway
Taco Bell
Circle K
Applebees
KFC/Taco
Bell
*Case
Summary
20130295
20130270
20130262
20130289
CONF
20130225
20130226
20310264
20130854
20130855
20130856
20130857
20130858
20130859
20130860
20130861
1601 N Cass St
727 S Wabash St
900 W Main St
3326 E Market St
2875 E Market St
3615 e Market St
606 N Main St
North
346 Hauenstein Rd
1325 SR 114 W
Wabash, IN
Wabash, IN
Peru, IN
BDL
BDL
No
samples
Logansport, IN BDL
Logansport, IN BDL
Logansport, IN CONF
Webster, IN
BDL
Huntington, IN CONF
Manchester, IN CONF
20130862
20130864
20130865
20130866
20130867
20130868
20130869
20130870
20130871
20130872
Page 2 of 4
Crystal Flash
410 E Main St
Pizza Hut
Culver
Academies
Bellman
McDonalds
McDonalds
speedway
Holiday Inn
Express
Speedway
Circle K
Speedway
Speedway
McDonalds
Speedway
Marriott
Courtyard
Hacienda
Mexican RST
Panera
On the Border
1532 E Market St
1300 Academy Rd
Red Roof Inn
9520 Valparaiso Ct
Marriott
Courtyard
Romanos
Macaroni Grl
Red Robin
Kona Grill
Residence Inn
Springhill
Suites
McAllister's
Studio 6
Motel 6
10290 N Meridian St
Emeritus @ Ft
Wayne
Village Oaks
Applebees
Residence Inn
Tilted Kilt
Cracker Barrel
Fairfield Inn
Fazolis
704 W Walnut St
2056 US HWY 31
801 Roosevelt Rd
12908 US HWY 6
4914 Beaner Blvd
Manchester, IN No
samples
Nappanee, IN
CONF
Culver, IN
BDL
Argos, IN
Plymouth, IN
Walkerton, IN
Lapaz, IN
Marion, IN
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
CONF
7304 Pendleton St
602 S Main St
1795 S Anderson St
9300 W Smith St
2331 W Sycamore St
396 N CR-OO EW
411 Kentucky Dr
Anderson, IN
Jonesboro, IN
Elwood, IN
Yorktown, IN
Kokomo, IN
Kokomo, IN
Kokomo, IN
BDL
CONF
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2006 S Plate St
Kokomo, IN
CONF
20130873
20130874
20130875
20130876
20130877
20130878
20130879
20130880
20130881
20130882
20130883
20130884
20130885
20130886
20130887
1941 S Reed Rd
6001 E 86th St
1258 W Carmel Dr
Kokomo, IN
Indianapolis,
IN
Indianapolis,
IN
Indianapolis,
IN
Carmel, IN
BDL
CONF
20130890
BDL
20130891
CONF
20130892
BDL
9965 N Michigan Rd
14395 Clay Terrace
11895 N Meridian St
11855 N Meridian St
Carmel, IN
Carmel, IN
Carmel, IN
Carmel, IN
14191 Town Ctr Blvd
8250 N By NE Blvd
3003 Coliseum Blvd
W
4730 E State Blvd
Noblesville, IN CONF
Fishers, IN
BDL
Ft Wayne, IN
CONF
4730 E State Blvd
6525 Lima Rd
4919 Lima Rd
4541 Illinois Rd
10427 Maysville Rd
6021 Lima Rd
5909 Covington Rd
20130888
20130889
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
20130893
20130894
20130895
20130896
20130897
20130898
20130899
20130902
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Page 3 of 4
No
samples
CONF
CONF
CONF
BDL
CONF
CONF
BDL
20130903
20130904
20130905
20130906
20130907
20130908
20130909
20130910
Speedway
Carlos o
Kellys
Steak N Shake
Taco Bell
Cork N
Cleaver
6205 Illinois Rd
5735 Falls Dr
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
6019 Illinois Rd
3320 Saint Joe Center
221 E Washington
Center Rd
*See actual case summary for details
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
Ft Wayne, IN
CONF
CONF
CONF
BDL
CONF
20130911
20130912
20130913
20130914
20130915
CONF=Confirmed
BDL=Below Detection Limits
8. Label language for Termidor SC, EPA Reg. #7969-210, states in part, “DIRECTIONS FOR
USE TO CONTROL LISTED PESTS ON OUTSIDE SURFACES AND ALONG
FOUNDATION PERIMETER OF LISTED STRUCTURES… DO NOT use indoors except
for applications into wall voids.”
Paul J. Kelley
Pesticide Investigator
Date: November 22, 2013
Disposition: EcoLab was cited for thirty-one (31) counts of violation of section 65(2) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions prohibiting
indoor use. A civil penalty in the amount of $7,750.00 (31 counts x $250.00 per count) was
assessed.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: December 20, 2013
Final Date: February 27, 2014
Page 4 of 4
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/0615
Complainant:
Edward Gross
1906 Kerrwood Drive
Anderson, Indiana 46011
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Affordable Pest Control
1430 ½ West 14th Street
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
c/o Delaware County Sheriff
100 W. Washington Street
Muncie, Indiana 47305
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
On April 2, 2013, Edward Gross contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report that a
woman named “Judy” from Affordable Pest Control came to his house to re-apply a bedbug
application on March 27, 2013. Mr. Gross indicated “Judy” emptied an entire backpack sprayer inside
the house, dousing the carpet, furniture and, at one point, directly spraying him. He stated “Judy” did
not leave any written information and would not tell him what she applied. Mr. Gross indicated his
dogs had not eaten right since the application and he and his wife had experienced breathing difficulty
and sore throats. According to OISC records, Affordable Pest Control has no female licensed
applicators.
2.
On April 3, 2013, I met with Mr. Gross at his residence. He reported Bruce Gee, a certified applicator
with Affordable Pest Control, made the initial bedbug application. The service ticket left by Mr. Gee,
dated March 10, indicated he applied:
-Zenprox (EPA Reg.#2724-803), active ingredients (a.i.) etofenprox and piperonyl butoxide
-Zenprox Aerosol (EPA Reg.#2724-675), a.i. same as above plus pyrethrins and tetramethrin
-Gentrol (EPA Reg.#2724-351), a.i. hydroprene
-Talstar (EPA Reg.#279-3206), a.i. bifenthrin
Mr. Gross stated he called several times after the application because he continued to see live bedbugs.
He stated “Judy” finally came out on March 27 with a younger girl who was approximately 20 years
old; “Judy” claimed the girl was “in training” but she did not help with the application. Mr. Gross
reported “Judy” was very talkative during the
application, stating that Mr. Gee, who owns the
company, was in a mental hospital and would probably lose the business when he is sentenced to jail
for child molesting.
3.
I collected swab samples from the front bedroom, from the back bedroom closet and
register, and
from the north bedroom electrical outlet. The samples were submitted to the OISC Residue Lab for
analysis.
Page 1 of 3
4.
On April 4, 2013, I went to Affordable Pest Control, located at 4816 W. Petty Road (Muncie) at the
time, and spoke with Mr. Gee and his office manager, Judith “Judy” Walker, about the complaint. Mr.
Gee stated he did not know anything about a re-application at the home of Mr. Gross. Ms. Walker
denied having been to the home and said chemicals make her sick so she cannot make applications. I
obtained a copy of the service ticket for Mr. Gee’s application which matched the one provided by Mr.
Gross.
5.
On April 9, 2013, Mr. Gross called to report that phone messages left at Affordable Pest Control were
not being answered so he filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Ms. Walker
reportedly responded via the BBB website, stating she had not been to his house. He called me three
days later to report that Ms. Walker again responded through
the BBB website, stating Mr. Gross
knew what she applied when she was at his house.
6.
On April 12, 2013, I spoke with Ms. Walker on the phone and informed her that I was getting two
totally different stories from her and Mr. Gross. She insisted she had not been to the house and that
she was with Mr. Gee at the hospital on the date of the re-application. I informed Ms. Walker that
OISC has a certified polygraph examiner of staff and asked if she would consent to an examination.
She said she would gladly take the polygraph but she had an upcoming throat surgery scheduled.
7.
On April 22, 2013, I talked to Ms. Walker, who stated Mr. Gee was going to court on May 15 and
would likely be sentenced to jail. Ms. Walker said she would be taking over the company when Mr.
Gee goes to jail and certified applicator Justin Dobbs would be running service routes along with her
nephew, registered technician Nathan Cooper. She informed me that, because of problems between
Mr. Gee and herself, she had taken out a no-contact order against him and he was no longer living in
the house on Petty Road. Ms. Walker indicated she was still answering the company phone and
preparing service tickets for Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Gee, who was stopping at the house on Petty Road
daily to pick his up.
8.
On April 23, 2013, Mr. Gross called to report that Ms. Walker had again responded to him through the
BBB website, stating that no one at Affordable Pest Control knows Bruce Gee and that she was
leaving the company effective April 26. Mr. Gross insisted that Ms. Walker was there and made the
application, and he described Ms. Walker’s physical appearance to me. He also noted he had talked to
a neighbor who could verify that two females had been at his house the day of the re-application. On
April 30, 2013, I met with Louise Allen, who lives at 1903 Kerrwood Drive, across the street from Mr.
Gross. She recalled seeing two white females exiting a vehicle and getting a sprayer out of the back of
the vehicle about the time of the re-application.
9.
On May 10, 2013, Ron Jones contacted the OISC to report that Ms. Walker deposited a check he had
written to Affordable Pest Control for a termite treatment she and two younger males made at his
rental house in Muncie on May 4 (Case#2013/0918). He stated Mr. Gee came to do the treatment, but
Ms. Walker had already done it without Mr. Gee’s knowledge. Feeling the job was done improperly,
Mr. Jones addressed Ms. Walker, but she said it was done right and she would see him in court. He
reportedly filed a fraud complaint with the Muncie Police where both he and Mr. Gee had provided
written statements. It should be noted this began a string of follow-up investigations wherein Ms.
Walker allegedly made for-hire pest control applications without a license and without the supervision
or knowledge of certified applicators Mr. Gee or Mr. Dobbs.
10. On May 13, 2013, I spoke with Mr. Gee on the phone while he was reportedly at his attorney’s office
in Muncie. During our conversation, I heard a female voice yelling in the background. Mr. Gee stated
it was Judy, who had come into the office, told him his business was dissolved and then left. He
indicated she had control of the business because he has no access to the house or company phone and
Page 2 of 3
she was not forwarding calls to him. He stated he was sure Ms. Walker and Mr. Cooper were
servicing the company accounts because she was only giving him a couple of jobs per day. Mr. Gee
stated Mr. Cooper should not be making applications nor should he be associated with the company
because he was fired in February. I informed Mr. Gee that Mr. Cooper was still listed as an applicator
with the company in the OISC database. I immediately called Ms. Walker to inform her that the
polygraph examination would be administered on May 17. Though I had just heard her yelling at Mr.
Gee minutes before, her voice was extremely raspy and hoarse. She said she could hardly speak
because of her recent surgery, but she would try to take the polygraph.
11. On May 17, 2013, certified polygraph examiner (Lic.#233) and OISC compliance officer, Agent
George Saxton, and I met with Ms. Walker at the Madison County Extension Office. Agent Saxton
administered the polygraph in my presence. A copy of his report was put in the case file. It reads, in
part, “During the pre-test interview, Ms. Walker denied ever having applied pesticides for hire
herself. She was advised that several independent individuals had allegedly seen her making
applications but she continued to deny any involvement.” It further states, “During the
examination, there were reactions to the relevant questions indicative of an attempt at deception.
After careful analysis, it is my opinion that she did not tell the complete truth during the
examination.”
12. On May 24, 2013, I met with Mr. Gross at his home. I displayed a photo lineup which included
individual photographs of Ms. Walker and four other women. He picked Ms. Walker out of the group,
circled her photo, signed and dated the lineup.
13. The OISC Residue Lab analyzed the swab samples for carbaryl, piperonyl butoxide, permethrin,
hydroprene, fenvalerate, etofenprox, deltamethrin and bifenthrin. Carbaryl was not detected in any
of the samples.
Sample#615-2
Front bedroom – all above listed active ingredients CONFIRMED
Sample#615-3
Back bedroom closet - all above listed active ingredients CONFIRMED
Sample#615-4
Back bedroom register – all CONFIRMED except fenvalerate and deltamethrin
Sample#615-5 North bedroom outlet - all CONFIRMED except fenvalerate
Andrew R. Roth
Disposition: Judith A. Walker was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license.
It should be noted that at the time of this report, Ms. Walker had been incarcerated in the Delaware
County Jail for burglary causing injury; criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and
attempted murder. Her charging documents in this case were sent to the Delaware County Jail address
listed above.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Final Date: March 14, 2014
Page 3 of 3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/0759
Complainant:
West Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Bruce Gee
1430 ½ West 14th street
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Licensed Applicator
Licensed Business
1.
As a result of a previous investigation (Case#2013/0609), in which Bruce Gee admitted he
applied Termidor SC to the interior of a church contrary to label directions, it was
determined that he also applied the product to the interior of three residences. A service
ticket obtained during the initial investigation indicated the home of Joshua and Sarah
Shaffer at 10131 N. Reynard Road Albany, IN, was one of those application sites.
2.
According to the service ticket, Mr. Gee applied Termidor SC (EPA Reg.#7969-210), active
ingredient fipronil, inside the home on January 22, 2013.
3.
On April 24, 2013, I spoke with Sarah Shaffer on the phone and informed her of the original
investigation and subsequent findings. I explained that Mr. Gee applied the product
contrary to label directions and that I would make a site visit to collect swab samples to
confirm the product was applied inside her home.
4.
On May 2, 2013, I met with Mrs. Shaffer at her home. She indicated Affordable Pest
Control was called because ants were entering the house. Mrs. Shaffer stated Mr. Gee
sprayed around the front door and along the baseboard in the living room as well as in the
kitchen. I collected a swab sample from the base of the living room wall along a baseboard
heater and another from the kitchen baseboard. The samples were submitted to the OISC
Residue Lab for analysis.
6.
The OISC Residue Lab ran the samples for fipronil and reported the following results:
Sample#759-1
Sample#759-2
Sample#759-3
Control Swab
Swab-living room
Swab-kitchen
Below Detection Limits
Confirmed
Confirmed
Page 1 of 2
7.
The Termidor SC label states, “DO NOT use this product for termite or other pest
control indoors, except for label-specified applications for termite control and foam
applications to wall voids for control of other listed pests.”
Andrew R. Roth
Date: September 11, 2013
DISPOSITION: Bruce Gee was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding restrictions on indoor
applications. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: November 27, 2013
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/0918
Complainant:
Ron Jones
2420 S. Beacon Street
Muncie, IN 47302
765-750-0688
Applicator:
Judith Walker
1430 ½ West 14th street
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
100 W. Washington St.
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
On May 10, 2013, Ron Jones contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report
that he had contracted with Bruce Gee of Affordable Pest Control (located at 4816 W. Petty
Road in Muncie at the time) to do a termite treatment at a rental he owns at 602 & 602 ½
McKenzie Street in Muncie, IN. He stated that Judy Walker, the unlicensed office manager at
Affordable Pest Control, called him on Saturday May 4, 2013, and said that they had a
cancellation and the treatment could be done that day. Ms. Walker reportedly called Mr. Jones
two days later to make arrangements to meet for payment. After receiving a check for
$1,325.00 on Monday May 6, Ms. Walker deposited the check without authorization of
Affordable Pest Control.
2.
I spoke with Mr. Jones who indicated Mr. Gee contacted him on May 9, 2013, to schedule the
treatment. He told Mr. Gee the treatment was already done and payment had been made. Mr.
Jones stated Mr. Gee was not aware Ms. Walker had scheduled and completed the treatment;
Mr. Gee inspected the house and promised to re-treat the house, citing the job was not done
properly as no drill holes were visible. Mr. Jones indicated he tried to stop payment on the
check he gave Ms. Walker but it had been deposited, unbeknownst to Mr. Gee, allegedly in a
newly-opened Affordable Pest Control account. The check was endorsed by Nathan Cooper,
who is the nephew of Ms. Walker and a former registered technician at Affordable Pest Control.
Mr. Jones stated he filed a fraud complaint with the Muncie Police Department on May 9, 2013,
and indicated both he and Mr. Gee had provided written statements. A day later, he reportedly
confronted Ms. Walker at the business about not being licensed and told her she could either
refund his money or go to court; she indicated she would see him in court. I informed Mr. Jones
that I was already investigating a complaint in which it was alleged Ms. Walker made a pest
control application without a license or proper supervision (Case#2013/0615). In that case, it
had become apparent Ms. Walker was planning to take over the business pending Mr. Gee’s
upcoming trial and sentencing; she obtained a no-contact order and was controlling all incoming
business calls by keeping Mr. Gee out of his home/business on Petty Road.
Page 1 of 3
3.
On May 13, 2013, I met Mr. Jones and photographed the documents he had on hand including
the service ticket, the service agreement, a copy of the endorsed check, part of the police report
and Mr. Jones’ written statement to police. The service ticket indicated Termidor SC (EPA Reg.
#7969-210) was applied for termites to “All ext. soil around perimeter”. “Bruce G” was
hand-written in the “Serviced By” box on the ticket; this was common as Ms. Walker routinely
prepared the tickets for Mr. Gee’s applications. The service agreement stated, “Trenched soil
around perimeter of property and applied Termidor SC @ 25 gallons. Returned soil to
previous state.”
4.
On May 13, 2013, I spoke with Ms. Walker about the complaint. She initially indicated she did
not know Mr. Jones, but then remembered he had come to the business. Ms. Walker stated she
did not do the application on McKenzie Street and that it had been done by certified applicator
Justin Dobbs and Mr. Cooper. She confirmed she prepares the service tickets for Mr. Gee and
Mr. Dobbs, who pick them up at the business before making the applications. We discussed the
other complaint against her (Case#2013/0615), in which she was accused of performing a
bedbug re-application at a residence in Anderson; she insisted she had never been to the house.
The complainant in that case had described Ms. Walker’s physical appearance and insisted she
was there and made the application. Because the two stories contradicted, Ms. Walker was
offered a polygraph examination which she accepted.
5.
On May 16, 2013, I met with Officer Terry Winters of the Muncie Police Department regarding
the fraud complaint and obtained a copy of Mr. Gee’s written statement.
6.
On May 16, 2013, I met with Jolene Murphy, the tenant at 602 McKenzie Street. She indicated
she was home the day Ms. Walker and two younger white males treated the house. Ms. Murphy
reported that Ms. Walker directed the application and did all the talking, and she stated Ms.
Walker and one of the males entered the home four or five times to fill a backpack sprayer with
water because there is no spigot outside. Ms. Walker reportedly told her that entry into the
crawlspace was not necessary and that they would just drill holes. I then spoke with Aaron
Hunt, the tenant at 602 ½ McKenzie. He stated he was home at the time of the treatment and
had spoken with Ms. Walker briefly. She reportedly told him she would need an electrical
outlet for the drill; he showed her an outlet in the house, but she never came inside to use it. Mr.
Hunt indicated live termites had been seen inside his unit, but the applicators only treated the
exterior of the house. I inspected the exterior of the structure for trenching and saw no evidence
that the soil had been disturbed.
7.
On May 16, 2013, I met with Mr. Gee at his dad’s house in Anderson, IN. He provided a
written statement, indicating he and Mr. Dobbs were the only employees at Affordable Pest
Control authorized to make for-hire pesticide applications. Mr. Gee had requested Mr. Cooper
be removed from his business in the OISC database on May 13, 2013 as he had failed to do so in
February when he fired Mr. Cooper. Mr. Dobbs arrived and he and Mr. Gee provided
information for several sites where Ms. Walker had allegedly made for-hire applications without
their knowledge. Both had reportedly stopped at monthly service accounts, going off memory
since Ms. Walker was not giving them service tickets, and had been told that a female and a
younger male had already sprayed. Mr. Dobbs stated he did not do the application for Mr.
Jones, nor had he ever been to the house on McKenzie Street.
8.
On May 17, 2013, certified polygraph examiner (License #233) and OISC compliance officer,
Agent George Saxton, and I met with Ms. Walker at the Madison County Extension Office.
Page 2 of 3
Agent Saxton administered the polygraph in my presence. Ms. Walker was asked a series of ten
(10) questions regarding the bedbug re-application in Anderson and her possible involvement in
making for-hire pesticide applications. A copy of his report was put in the case file. It reads, in
part, “During the pre-test interview, Ms. Walker denied ever having applied pesticides for
hire herself. She was advised that several independent individuals had allegedly seen her
making applications but she continued to deny any involvement.” It further states, “During
the examination, there were reactions to the relevant questions indicative of an attempt at
deception. After careful analysis, it is my opinion that she did not tell the complete truth
during the examination.”
9.
On May 22, 2013, Ms. Walker called to inquire how she could get Mr. Cooper reinstated
with the business in the OISC database. I informed her Mr. Gee insisted Mr. Cooper was
not an employee and was not authorized to make applications for the business. She reported
that Mr. Gee had changed his mind regarding the status of the license. I informed her that
Mr. Gee could make the change if he wanted to do so.
10. On May 24, 2013, I met with Ms. Murphy at her residence and displayed a photo lineup which
included individual photographs of Ms. Walker and four other women. She picked Ms.
Walker’s photo and identified her as being the woman who made the termite application. Ms.
Murphy circled the photo and initialed and dated the lineup. I then met with Mr. Hunt and
showed him a copy of the photo lineup. He too picked Ms. Walker’s photo and identified her as
being the woman who made the application. Mr. Hunt circled the photo and initialed and dated
the lineup.
11. I later spoke with Mr. Gee about the quality of the termite treatment at the rental on McKenzie.
He indicated he had returned to the house and treated the structure properly. Mr. Jones
confirmed that Mr. Gee had indeed re-treated the house.
Andrew R. Roth
Disposition: Judith A. Walker was cited for violation 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 $500.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact this was her second violation of similar nature. See case
number 2013/0615.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 3 of 3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/0999
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
In the spring of 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received two complaints
alleging Judith Walker, office manager at Affordable Pest Control, made for-hire pesticide
applications without a license.
During those investigations (Case#2013/0615 and
Case#2013/0918), it was determined that Ms. Walker made pesticide applications at two
residences without the supervision or knowledge of certified applicator, Bruce Gee, the
owner of Affordable Pest Control. Ms. Walker had taken out a “no-contact order” against
Mr. Gee, which kept him out of his home/business, located at 4816 W. Petty Road (Muncie)
at the time, thus allowing her to control the business and incoming calls. During that time,
Ms. Walker informed me that she planned to take over the business pending Mr. Gee’s trial
and subsequent sentencing in Delaware County.
2.
While Ms. Walker was in control of the workload, Mr. Gee and Justin Dobbs, the other
certified applicator at Affordable Pest Control at the time, attempted to service some of
the monthly accounts from memory. In doing so, each reportedly encountered customers
who indicated their monthly service had already been completed. Mr. Gee and Mr. Dobbs
forwarded the customer information for those accounts to me and subsequent investigations
were initiated. Mr. Gee provided a written statement which indicated he and Mr. Dobbs
were the only applicators allowed to make pesticide applications for the business.
3.
On May 30, 2013, I went to the home of Wanda Walters at 5004 W. Connie Drive in
Muncie, IN, and informed her of the situation. According to a service ticket provided by
Mr. Gee, Talstar (EPA Reg.#279-3206) and Tempo WP (EPA Reg.#432-1304) were applied
at the home on May 1, 2013. “Bruce G” had been hand-written in the “Serviced By”
Page 1 of 2
portion of the ticket; this was common as Ms. Walker routinely prepared the tickets for
applications Mr. Gee made. Mrs. Walters reported that a female made the application
and that she came to the house by herself. I displayed a photo lineup which included
individual photographs of Ms. Walker and four other women. Mrs. Walters was unable to
identify Ms. Walker as the woman who made the application, citing that it had been several
weeks since the application was made.
4.
As part of the original complaint investigation (Case#2013/0615), Ms. Walker was offered a
polygraph examination; on May 17, 2013, certified polygraph examiner (Lic.#233) and
OISC compliance officer, Agent George Saxton, and I met with Ms. Walker at the Madison
County Extension Office. Agent Saxton administered the polygraph in my presence. Ms.
Walker was asked a series of ten (10) questions regarding her possible involvement in
making for-hire pesticide applications. A copy of his report was put in the case file. It
reads, in part, “During the pre-test interview, Ms. Walker denied ever having applied
pesticides for hire herself. She was advised that several independent individuals had
allegedly seen her making applications but she continued to deny any involvement.” It
further states, “During the examination, there were reactions to the relevant questions
indicative of an attempt at deception. After careful analysis, it is my opinion that she
did not tell the complete truth during the examination.”
Andrew R. Roth
DISPOSITION: Judith A. Walker was cited for violation 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 $1,000.00 was assessed for this
violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her third violation of similar nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: January 16, 2014
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1000
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
residences without the supervision or knowledge of certified applicator Bruce Gee, the
2.
3.
On May 30, 2013, I went to the home of Rajeev Mehta at 608 S. Riviera Lane in Yorktown,
IN, to inform him of the situation. According to a service ticket provided by Mr. Gee,
Tempo WP (EPA Reg.#432-1304) was applied at the home on May 1, 2013. “Bruce G”
had been hand-written in the “Serviced By” portion of the ticket; this was common as Ms.
Page 1 of 2
Walker routinely prepared the tickets for applications Mr. Gee made. Mr. Mehta was not
home but I spoke to Mrs. Rashmi Mehta. She reported that a female came out and sprayed
inside and outside of the house using a backpack sprayer. Mrs. Mehta reported that the
applicator was not accompanied by anyone else, but could not provide any further details.
4.
Andrew R. Roth
Date: December 9, 2013
Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without having an
Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her fourth violation of similar
nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1001
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
2.
3.
On May 30, 2013, I went to the home of Mike and Sue Coker at 2108 S. Grant Street in
Muncie, IN, to inform them of the situation. Mr. Gee reportedly planned to make an
application at the home, but Mrs. Coker told him that Ms. Walker had already done it on
May 2, 2013. Mrs. Coker was not given a service ticket, rather Ms. Walker gave her a
business card with “Pd $50.00 Judie” hand-written on the back as a receipt. Mr. and Mrs.
Page 1 of 2
Coker were not home when I stopped, but Mrs. Coker’s brother reported that a female had
made the application. Another woman staying at the residence, “Lisa”, reported that while
the female applicator was spraying, she was rambling about Bruce (Gee) being in jail and
how she would be taking over the business. I later talked to Mrs. Coker on the phone.
She confirmed that the applicator was a female and that she had a younger girl, possibly a
niece, with her. Mrs. Coker indicated her husband could likely identify Ms. Walker. I
returned to the house later on May 30, 2013, and met with Mr. Coker. He stated Ms.
Walker made the application inside the house and he confirmed that a girl, described as Ms.
Walker’s niece, was with her at the time. I displayed a photo lineup which included
individual photographs of Ms. Walker and four other women. Mr. Coker identified Ms.
Walker as the applicator who made the application. He circled her picture and dated and
initialed the lineup.
4.
Andrew R. Roth
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her fifth violation of similar
nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1002
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
2.
3.
On June 3, 2013, I went to Changing Seasons, a business at 2012 N. Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard (formerly Broadway Avenue) in Muncie, IN, to inform the owners of the
situation. According to a service ticket provided by Mr. Gee, Talstar (EPA Reg.#279-3206)
was applied at the Changing Seasons and the home behind the business on May 15, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
“Bruce G” had been hand-written in the “Serviced By” portion of the ticket; this was
common as Ms. Walker routinely prepared the tickets for applications Mr. Gee made.
However, “Nathan Cooper RT248349” was also written on the ticket. Mr. Cooper, the
nephew of Ms. Walker, was once licensed with Affordable Pest Control. I informed the
owner, Pat Wallace, about the ongoing investigations. Mrs. Wallace indicated she was
aware of the situation as her son-in-law is Mr. Gee’s attorney. She reported that Ms. Walker
and a younger male, whom she described as being skinny with tattoos, both used backpack
sprayers to make the application at the business and at the home of her mother, behind the
business, on May 15, 2013. Mrs. Wallace stated Mr. Dobbs arrived to do the monthly
service about five minutes after Ms. Walker and the younger male left. Ms. Walker
reportedly told Mrs. Wallace that she was making applications for Mr. Gee as he was in the
hospital. I displayed a photo lineup which included individual photographs of Ms. Walker
and four other women. Mrs. Wallace identified Ms. Walker as the woman who made the
application. She circled her picture and initialed the lineup.
4.
Andrew R. Roth
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her sixth violation of similar
nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1004
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Complainant:
Dick & Beth Hall
5101 Preakness Court
Muncie, IN 47304
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
residences without the supervision or knowledge of certified applicator, Bruce Gee, the owner of
Affordable Pest Control. Ms. Walker had taken out a “no-contact order” against Mr. Gee, which
kept him out of his home/business, located at 4816 W. Petty Road (Muncie) at the time, thus
allowing her to control the business and incoming calls. During that time, Ms. Walker informed
me that she planned to take over the business pending Mr. Gee’s trial and subsequent sentencing
in Delaware County.
2.
While Ms. Walker was in control of the workload, Mr. Gee and Justin Dobbs, the other certified
applicator at Affordable Pest Control at the time, attempted to service some of the monthly
accounts from memory. In doing so, each reportedly encountered customers who indicated their
monthly service had already been completed. Mr. Gee and Mr. Dobbs forwarded the customer
information for those accounts to me and subsequent investigations were initiated. Mr. Gee
provided a written statement which indicated he and Mr. Dobbs were the only applicators
allowed to make pesticide applications for the business.
3.
Mr. Gee reportedly ran into one of his regular customers, Dick Hall, at the bank. Mr. Hall
reported that Ms. Walker had come to his condominium with a younger male to make an
application and that they had done a poor job. He also reported that one of his wife’s credit
cards was used shortly after Ms. Walker and the male left his residence. On June 5, 2013, I met
with Dick and Beth Hall at their residence at 5101 Preakness Court in Muncie, IN. Mrs. Hall
Page 1 of 2
indicated Ms. Walker and a young male with tattoos and earrings made an application at the
residence on May 7, 2013. She reported that Ms. Walker appeared to be training the male on
how to operate the sprayer and continually stopped him during the application. The two
reportedly came in Ms. Walker’s personal car, described as a burnt orange Pontiac Aztec with a
white, front quarter-panel; this description fit the vehicle I knew as belonging to Ms. Walker
and which I had seen at the business previously.
4.
Mrs. Hall produced the service ticket left by Ms. Walker which indicated Talstar (EPA
Reg.#279-3206) had been applied. “Bruce G” had been hand-written in the “Serviced By”
portion of the ticket; this was common as Ms. Walker routinely prepared the tickets for
applications Mr. Gee made. Mrs. Hall stated that she was inside while Ms. Walker and the
male made the application inside and outside the residence. The Halls indicated they were
notified on May 7, 2013, that approximately eight (8) minutes after Ms. Walker and the male
left the residence one of Mrs. Hall’s credit cards was used in a transaction for $50.00 worth of
gasoline plus $50.00 cash-back at a nearby Marathon station; the credit card
had reportedly
been in Mrs. Hall’s purse inside the residence when the application was made. A police report
was filed with the Muncie Police Department regarding the theft.
5.
I displayed a photo lineup which included individual photographs of Ms. Walker and four
other women. Mrs. Hall was unable to identify Ms. Walker in the lineup, but she did accurately
describe her physical appearance.
6.
Mr. Gee later reported that he went to the condominium and made a proper application at no
charge to Mr. and Mrs. Hall. Mr. Hall confirmed the residence had indeed been re-treated.
7.
polygraph examination; on May 17, 2013, certified polygraph examiner (Lic.#233) and OISC
compliance officer, Agent George Saxton, and I met with Ms. Walker at the Madison County
Extension Office. Agent Saxton administered the polygraph in my presence. Ms. Walker was
asked a series of ten (10) questions regarding her possible involvement in making for-hire
pesticide applications. A copy of his report was put in the case file. It reads, in part, “During
the pre-test interview, Ms. Walker denied ever having applied pesticides for hire herself.
She was advised that several independent individuals had allegedly seen her making
examination, there were reactions to the relevant questions indicative of an attempt at
Andrew R. Roth
DISPOSITION: Judith A. Walker was cited for violation 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 $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact this is her seventh violation of similar nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1006
Complainant:
175 S. University Street
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Supervisor:
Linda Wrightsman
Roger Doty
Countryside Landscape Solutions
8601 S. State Road 3
Muncie, IN 47302
765-744-6500
Not Licensed
1.
On May 30, 2013, I observed a female applicator spraying weeds at a commercial property in Muncie,
Indiana. When the applicator returned to the company truck, I introduced myself to Linda Wrightsman and
initiated a pesticide use and licensing inspection.
2.
Ms. Wrightsman indicated she works part-time for Countryside Landscape and that she does not have an
applicator license. She stated was spraying Gly Star Pro, a glyphosate product, to control weeds and
grasses at the site. Ms. Wrightsman indicated Roger Doty is her supervisor but he was not on-site. I
informed Ms. Wrightsman that it is required that unlicensed applicators have a certified applicator on-site
while pesticide applications are made. While making the application, Ms. Wrightsman was wearing short
pants and a short-sleeved shirt. I read the Gly Star Plus (EPA Reg. #42750-61) label personal protective
equipment requirements to Ms. Wrightsman. The label reads, “Applicators and other handlers
must
wear: 1. Long-sleeved shirt and long pants 2. Shoes plus socks.” I instructed Ms. Wrightsman to cease
making applications until she could come into compliance.
3.
I spoke with Mr. Doty and informed him of the inspection and what I had found. He indicated he is always
on-site with Ms. Wrightsman makes applications but he had to leave the site for a little while on this
particular day. He apologized and indicated it would not happen again.
Andrew R. Roth
DISPOSITION: Roger Doty 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. A
civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact
there was a potential for human harm for an employee under his supervision.
Roger Doty was cited for 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 $125.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact Mr.
Doty received financial gain for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1017
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Business/Applicator:
Palmira Golf Club
Richard Nicpon
12111 W. 109th Street
St. John, IN 46373
219-365-4331
1. On June 7, 2013, I went to the Palmira Golf Club in St. John, Indiana to inquire about the
status of Mr. Nicpon’s license to apply pesticides at the golf course and to document any
pesticide applications that may have taken place this year.
2. According to OISC records Mr. Nicpon’s license had expired as of December 31, 2012,
for non-renewal. On March 25, 2013, OISC received the renewal form with a check for
$45.00 signed by Mr. Nicpon and dated March 5, 2013.
3. The renewal form states that if the renewal for is postmarked after December 31, by law,
an additional 100% late fee is required. This would have meant that Mr. Nicpon was
required to send an additional $45.00.
4. On March 29, 2013, Mr. Nicpon was notified in writing requesting the additional $45.00.
5. On April 30, 2013, a Final Notice was sent to Mr. Nicpon regarding the licensing issue
via certified mail. The Final Notice advised if OISC had not received a response by May
10, 2013, OISC would assume that Mr. Nicpon did not intend to hold a pesticide license
for 2013.
6. After issuing a Notice of Inspection to Mr. Nicpon and explaining the situation to him he
advised that he did not get the certified letter, which OISC records show that the letter
was not picked up. Mr. Nicpon advised that he thought he was in compliance whereupon
I explained the need for the late fee and pointed out to him on the renewal for where it
indicated same.
7. Mr. Nicpon advised that the late fee of $45.00 would be in the mail to OISC before the
close of business on this very day.
8. I was then able to collect records of two pesticide applications made to the course in
2013. One of which was on May 20 and the other on June 4. Both applications were
Page 1 of 2
9. Touché EG Fungicide (EPA Reg. #7969-224) active ingredient vinclozolin. The
applications were made to greens for the treatment of Dollar Spot.
10. An Action Order was issued to Mr. Nicpon and Palmira Golf Club to stop any and all
pesticide applications until such time that they have come into compliance with OISC
licensing regulations.
Kevin W. Neal
Date: June 8, 2013
DISPOSITION: Richard Nicpon 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 for this violation. However, the civil
penalty was reduced to $100.00. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Nicpon cooperated
during the investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar
nature; a good faith effort to comply and no restricted use pesticides were involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: June 12, 2013
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1022
Complainant:
John Doty
P.O. Box 169
French Lick, IN 47432
812-639-2876
Respondent:
Samuel J Mehringer
DBO: Scattered Acres Farms
1517 Inman Cemetery Rd.
Loogootee, IN 47553
812-630-6834
Private Applicator
1. On June 6, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a complaint by John Doty alleging a
farming pesticide application next to his property had caused injury symptoms to his grapes.
2. On June 10, 2013, I met with Mr. Doty at his farm location at 4084 WR Cemetery Road, in Loogootee, Indiana.
Mr. Doty stated that Scattered Acres Farms had made an application to part of a field located directly north of his
grape vineyard around May 25, 2013. Mr. Doty indicated that his grape vines were healthy prior to the
application, but the leaves began to cup and curl and few days after the application. In addition, he observed “burn
spot” type of symptoms appearing on the leaves. Mr. Doty informed me that he had contacted Samuel Mehringer
and been informed that they had only applied Roundup for the field burn down.
3. I inspected the vineyard with Mr. Doty and observed the grape plants on the north side exhibited symptoms of
cupping/curling and “burn spots” on the leaves. The newest growth of the grapes appeared to be the most affected
and not developing normally (symptoms consistent with a growth regulator type of herbicide). The Symptoms of
cupping/curling were observed on different plants throughout the vineyard, but seem to decrease with distance to
the south (farther away from suspected field and consistent with a drift pattern).
4. I also inspected the tree line that was located between the field in question and Mr. Doty’s grape vineyard. The
trees and plants in this area exhibited the same symptoms observed on the grape plants, but were more extensive.
Mr. Doty informed me that they had used some Roundup around the bases of the grape plants, but had not used
any type of growth regulator product. In addition, the fields located in the area were pasture ground for livestock
and no applications of a pesticide had been made. The distance between the northern edge of Mr. Doty’s vineyard
and the southern edge of the suspected field was approximately 100 feet.
5. Vegetation samples were collected from Mr. Doty’s grape plants. Photograph #1 below shows an effected plant
from the tree row (mentioned above). Photograph # 2 below shows an example of the twisting, cupping/curling of
the grape plant vines and leaves. Photograph #3 below shows the burn spotting symptoms observed.
Photograph 1
Photograph 2
Page 1 of 2
Photograph 3
6. On June 10, 2013, I went to Scattered Acres Farms and spoke with Samuel Mehringer. Mr. Mehringer stated his
son, Seth Mehringer made an application to the field in question and Gramoxone and 2,4-D had been applied. Mr.
Mehringer was given a Pesticide Investigative Inquiry form to be completed regarding the application. This form
was returned on June 24, 2013, and indicated that Gramoxone SL 2.0 (EPA Reg. #100-1431; active ingredient:
paraquat dichloride), E-99 (EPA Reg. # 1381-195; active ingredient: 2,4-D) and Authority XL (EPA Reg. # 2793413; active ingredient: sulfentrazone and chlorimuron ethyl) had been applied on May 24, 2013. No times were
listed during which the application was made.
7. On June 11, 2013, vegetation samples were turned into the Purdue Plant Diagnostic Lab for analysis. The results
were reported back on June 12, 2013, and stated the following: “Cupping and strapping of leaves is indicative of
exposure to a growth regulator herbicide such as 2,4-D. Sample also has some necrotic spotting that is indicative
of Gramoxone exposure. There was no evidence of disease on the sample.”
8. On June 11, 2013, vegetation samples were turned into the State Chemist Residue Lab for analysis. The results
were reported by on November 5, 2013, and indicated the following:
•
Sample # 20130604: Grape Vine Sample
Sulfentrazone
BDL
2,4-D
271.0 PPB
Chlorimuron-Ethyl
BDL
•
Sample # 20130605: Soil From Target Field
Sulfentrazone
5.8 PPB
Chlorimuron-Ethyl
2.6 PPB
BDL = Below Detection Limits PPB = Parts per Billion
9. A check of the weather data, obtained from the weather station located in Huntingburg, Indiana, indicated that on
May 24, 2013, the winds were from the north (blowing toward Mr. Doty’s vineyard) between 5 and 12 miles per
hour.
10. The Gramoxone label stated the following: “Sensitive Areas: The pesticide must only be applied when the
potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g. residential areas, bodies of water, known habitat for threatened
or endangered species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g. when wind is blowing away from the sensitive areas).”
11. The E-99 label stated the following: “Only apply this product if wind direction favors on-target deposition and
there are not sensitive areas (including, but not limited to, residential areas, bodies of water, known habitat for
non-target species, non-target crops) within 250 feet downwind.”
Scott M. Farris
Disposition: Samuel J. Mehringer was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding drift to non-target areas. A civil penalty in the
amount of $100.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this was his second
violation of similar nature (see 2012/0660) and a restricted use pesticide was involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1050
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
2.
3.
On May 24, 2013, I went to The Players Club at Woodland Trails, a golf course at 6610
West River Road in Yorktown, Indiana. According to a service ticket provided by Mr.
Dobbs, Talstar (EPA Reg.#279-3206) was applied at the pro shop on May 15, 2013.
“Bruce G” had been hand-written in the “Serviced By” portion of the ticket; this was
Page 1 of 2
common as Ms. Walker routinely prepared the tickets for applications Mr. Gee made.
However, “Nathan C. RT248349” was also written on the ticket. Nathan Cooper, the
nephew of Ms. Walker, was once licensed with Affordable Pest Control. While waiting on
the manager, I spoke with Matt Roberts in the pro shop. As I informed him of the
investigation, he stated that a female called and asked if the pest control treatment had been
done. He reportedly told her it had not been done and soon after the phone call, she arrived
with a younger male and proceeded to make the application. I then spoke with Head Golf
Professional and General Manager, Perry Dotson, and informed him of the ongoing
investigations. Mr. Dotson indicated he was there the day of the application and that it was
done by a female and a younger, straggly-haired male whom he thought was wearing a
uniform. I displayed a photo lineup which included individual photographs of Ms. Walker
and four other women. Mr. Dotson identified Ms. Walker as the woman who made the
application. He circled her picture and initialed and dated the lineup.
4.
Andrew R. Roth
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her eighth violation of similar
nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1051
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
2.
3.
Starting on May 30, 2013, I made several attempts to contact someone at Jokers Wild, a
business at 2206 South Madison Street in Muncie, IN. Mr. Dobbs reportedly went to
do the monthly service at the business and was told it had been done by a woman and a
younger male. On June 6, 2013, I again stopped at the business and was able to speak with
Page 1 of 2
manager Gary Warner. Mr. Warner reported that an application was made by a woman and
a younger male around the middle of May. He did not have the service ticket for the
application as the tickets are forwarded to Clevenger Accounting. Mr. Warner noted that
the male applicator was not his regular applicator (Mr. Dobbs) but he stated did not pay
much attention to the pair while the application was made. I went to Clevenger Accounting
and informed Joyce Clevenger of the investigation. Ms. Clevenger provided a copy of the
service ticket which indicated Talstar (EPA Reg.#279-3206) was applied at Jokers Wild on
May 15, 2013. “Bruce G” had been hand-written in the “Serviced By” portion of the
ticket; this was common as Ms. Walker routinely prepared the tickets for applications Mr.
Gee made. However, “Nathan C. RT248349” was also written on the ticket. Nathan
Cooper, the nephew of Ms. Walker, was once licensed with Affordable Pest Control.
4.
Andrew R. Roth
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her ninth violation of similar
nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1052
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Supervisor:
Robert Grissell
Ryan Conyer
Hittle Landscaping
17778 Sun Park Drive
Westfield, IN 46074
317-896-5697
Registered Technician
1.
On June 12, 2013, I observed a Hittle Landscaping crew mowing a commercial property on 82nd Street
in Indianapolis. One employee had a sprayer and was spraying weeds in the cracks of the pavement
and along the edges of the turf area and parking lot.
2.
When the applicator returned to the company truck, I introduced myself to Robert Grissell and
initiated a pesticide use and licensing inspection. Mr. Grissell produced his active registered
technician credential and reported he was spraying Gly Star, a glyphosate product, to control weeds
and grasses. He did not have a label for the product nor did he have a Site Assessment Fact Sheet;
there was no certified supervisor on-site. I informed Mr. Grissell that it is required that he have the
label and fact sheet with him. I explained that the label likely requires applicators to wear long pants
and a long-sleeved shirt. While making the application, Mr. Grissell was wearing boots, short pants
and a short-sleeved shirt. He indicated his supervisor is Ryan Conyer. I instructed Mr. Grissell to
cease making applications until he could come into compliance.
3.
I called and spoke with Mr. Conyer at Hittle Landscaping and informed him of the inspection and
what I had found. He indicated Mr. Grissell was applying Gly Star Plus (EPA Reg. #42750-61). I had
Mr. Conyer read me the personal protective equipment requirements off the product label. The label
reads, “Applicators and other handlers must wear: 1. Long-sleeved shirt and long pants 2. Shoes
plus socks.”
Andrew R. Roth
Date: October 14, 2013
DISPOSITION: Ryan Conyer was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to ensure the proper label-directed use of personal protective equipment.
Consideration was given to the fact there was potential for human harm. A civil penalty in the amount of
$250.00 was assessed.
Ryan Conyer was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law,
specifically 355 IAC 4-2-6, for failure to provide a technician with label and a site assessment fact sheet.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1078
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
2.
3.
On June 27, 2013, I went to the home of Marvin & Josie Blocher at 100 N. Saybrook Lane
in Muncie, IN, and informed them of the situation. The Blochers were aware of the
investigation because they had recently talked to Mr. Gee. Mr. Blocher reported that they
own sixteen rentals in the Muncie area and Mr. Gee has been servicing them for several
Page 1 of 2
years. He indicated that Mr. Gee always made the applications at their residence, but Ms.
Walker had serviced the rentals lately. Mrs. Blocher produced two service tickets which
had been left in her door after Ms. Walker serviced two of the rentals. The first service
ticket indicated a trap had been set for an opossum in the attic of a rental at 2236 West
7th Street in Muncie on April 30, 2013. The other ticket indicated Talstar (EPA Reg.#2793206) and Weatherblock, a rodent bait, had been used at 701 & 703 E. 7th Street in Muncie.
Dates were listed as May 16 and May 19, 2013; Mrs. Blocher explained that the residence
has two apartments and the services were done on separate days. She also reported that the
tenant at 703 E. 7th Street requested the mouse bait and that she had to call Ms. Walker to
have her go back out because she had not placed the bait the first time. “Bruce G” had
been hand-written in the “Serviced By” portion of each ticket; this was common as Ms.
Walker routinely prepared the tickets for applications Mr. Gee made. The Blochers stated
they know Ms. Walker and had corresponded with her while Mr. Gee was kept away from
the business. I went to both rental properties but was unable to make contact with any of the
tenants.
4.
Andrew R. Roth
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her eleventh violation of
similar nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case#2013/1079
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
2.
certified applicator at Affordable Pest Control at the time, attempted to service some of the
monthly accounts from memory. In doing so, each reportedly encountered customers who
indicated their monthly service had already been completed. Mr. Gee and Mr. Dobbs
3. On June 26, 2013, I went to the home of Wiley Howard at 4904 S. Florence Drive in Marion,
IN, and informed him of the situation. Mr. Gee had found a check from Mr. Howard
indicating Ms. Walker made an application at his home. Mr. Howard reported that Ms.
Walker and a younger male, whom he estimated was around 20 years old, came to his
Page 1 of 2
house to make the application. The male reportedly sprayed inside the house while the Ms.
Walker sprayed outside. Mr. Howard reported that Ms. Walker told him the owner of the
company was very busy with work so she was helping him by making applications. Mr.
Howard also noted that Ms. Walker called him a week after the application to inform him
that she had lost the check he gave her and that he should stop payment on the check.
According to the service ticket left by Ms. Walker, Talstar (EPA Reg.#279-3206) and
Gentrol (EPA Reg.#2724-801) were applied at the home on June 14, 2013. Termidor (EPA
Reg.#7969-329) was also listed on the ticket as being applied “Outside”. “Bruce G” had
been hand-written in the “Serviced By” portion of the ticket; this was common as Ms.
Walker routinely prepared the tickets for applications Mr. Gee made. I displayed a photo
lineup which included individual photographs of Ms. Walker and four other women. Mr.
Howard identified Ms. Walker as the woman who made the application. He circled her
photo and signed the lineup.
4.
Andrew R. Roth
for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is her tenth violation of similar
nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1091
Complainant:
175 South University Drive
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2063
317-494-1585
Respondent:
Atlantis Pools & Spas
1702 Wayne Street
Auburn, Indiana 46706
260-920-1100
1. On July 10, 2013, I conducted a marketplace inspection at Atlantis Pools & Spas in Auburn,
Indiana. I explained to David Perkins, the store manager, that the OISC had received
information that Atlantis Pools & Spas was repackaging sodium hypochlorite used for
swimming pool water disinfection without being a registered producing establishment as
required by US EPA. Mr. Perkins stated Atlantis Pools & Spas purchases bulk sodium
hypochlorite from Alexander Chemical in 330 gallon totes and does then repackage the
sodium hypochlorite into three gallon containers. Mr. Perkins stated he was not aware that
he had to be registered with US EPA to do the repackaging.
I explained to Mr. Perkins that the 330 gallon tote was considered bulk pesticide and
therefore required secondary containment. I also explained that the product they were
producing, Sodium Hypochlorite Solution (EPA Reg. #75373-20001-34910), was not
registered for sale or use in Indiana. I then collected copies of records showing the shipment
and delivery of bulk sodium hypochlorite from Alexander Chemical to Atlantis Pools &
Spas, collected a label for Sodium Hypochlorite Solution (EPA Reg. #75373-20001-34910)
that Atlantis applies to their three gallon containers and photographed the Alexander
Chemical 330 gallon tote (see figures 1 thru 4). Since Atlantis Pools & Spas was producing a
state unregistered and federally unregistered pesticide at a federally unregistered producer
establishment, I wrote a Stop Sale Use or Removal Order for the Atlantis Sodium
Hypochlorite Solution and instructed Mr. Perkins to return the 330 gallon tote to Alexander
Chemical.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Page 1 of 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Joseph D. Becovitz
Disposition: Atlantis Pools & Spas was cited for violation of section 57(1) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for producing an unregistered pesticide product. A civil penalty
in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Atlantis Pools & Spas was cited for violation of section 57(9) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for producing a pesticide at a federally unregistered production facility, in
violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). A civil
penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
On September 27, 2013, Joe Becovitz participated in a meeting of the sales staff at Alexander
Chemical to provide compliance assistance to address these violations from the supply side
of the relationship between Alexander and Atlantis.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1119
Complainant:
Julian Pirog
6145 Witt Ct.
Greenwood, IN 46143
317-507-3575
Respondent:
Barrett Brummett
Milhon Air, Inc.
2151 Centerton Rd.
Martinsville, IN 46151
317-831-7464
Licensed Business
1. On July 22, 2013, the Office of Indiana Stated Chemist, (OISC) received information from Julian
Pirog that he was drifted upon by an aerial application to a corn field behind (south) of his
residence on July 21, 2013 while he was mowing his lawn.
2. On July 23, 2013, I met with Mr. Pirog ant his residence in Greenwood, Indiana. Mr. Pirog stated
that while mowing his grass on July 21, 2013, he noticed a red and white airplane “buzzing” the
corn field directly behind his residence. Mr. Pirog stated the plane was flying out of the south
when he noticed it. Mr. Pirog stated he put his shirt in a bag upon my request.
3. On July 23, 2013, I collected the shirt worn by Mr. Pirog and collected environmental samples to
be analyzed by OISC’s Residue Lab.
4. On July 25, 2013, I received the application record from Milhon Air for the July 21, 2013,
application performed by Barrett Brummett using Quilt fungicide (EPA Reg. #100-1178).
5. On August 20, 2013, OISC’s Residue lab reported the following;
Lab sample # Description
Active
Ingredients
20130881
SHIRT; shirt worn by Mr. Pirog when exposed Azoxystrobin
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
20130884
C; control from window
Azoxystrobin
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
20130885
SW1; swab from window on south side of Azoxystrobin
residence
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
Page 1 of 2
Results
143000.0 NG/C
696.0 NG/C
763.0 NG/C
178000.0 NG/C
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
386.0 NG/S
1.47 NG/S
2.99 NG/S
267.0 NG/S
20130886
SW2; swab from window on south side of Azoxystrobin
residence
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
501.0 NG/S
BDL
6.32 NG/S
317.0 NG/S
6. Weather data from Weather underground, www.wunderground.com, stated that the wind was out
of the south, southeast at 1mph with gust to 2 mph.
7. The label language for Quilt Fungicide states in part, “Do not apply this product in a way that will
contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift.”
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
Date: August 30, 2013
Disposition: Barrett Brummett was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding drift to people. 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 2009/0713) and there was potential for
human harm.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1130
Complainant: Jennifer Sanders
4015 N 520 E
Medaryville, IN 47957
219-204-9386
Respondent: Chris Babbin
Bi-State Helicopters, Inc.
653 N 250 W
Covington, IN 47932
1. On July 26, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemists (OISC) received a complaint of
human exposure from an aerial pesticide application. The complaint was made by Jennifer
Sanders of Medaryville, IN.
2. On July 30, 2013, I met with complainant Jennifer Sanders, at her residence. Mrs. Sanders
stated, on July 25, 2013, she at her three children, Allie age 7, Averie age 5 and Anna age 18
months, were riding their bicycles on CR 425 N. She stated there had been a “crop duster”
airplane spraying in the area, earlier in the day. She thought that the airplane had finished
spraying, so she and he daughters went for a ride. She stated that as they were traveling
eastbound on CR 425 N, the airplane appeared. It was spraying the corn field just south of
CR 425 N and east of CR 520 E. She stated that she told the children to hurry, as they were
still some distance from their residence. She stated that the airplane then flew westbound,
along the north edge of the cornfield right against CR 425 N. It was spraying chemical as it
passed them. Mrs. Sanders stated that she could smell the chemical and feel the mist from the
chemical, as the airplane passed by them. She stated that she told her children to cover their
mouths and to ride fast. She then contacted her father, who came to the location and picked
them up. They all returned to Mrs. Sander’s residence and she immediately showered herself
and her children. She stated that their eyes were puffy, but the symptoms went away after
showering.
3. I asked Mrs. Sanders to take me to the location, where she stated she was exposed to the
mist. She took me approximately ½ mile west of CR 520 E on CR 425 N in Jasper County.
She stated that she and the children were just east of the residence of 4234 E. 425 N. when
she encountered the airplane. I took Mrs. Sanders back to her residence and requested that
she complete a written statement for me. She did so and this statement is included with this
case summary. I then obtained a T-shirt and a pair of shorts from Allie, a T-shirt from Averie
and a shirt from Mrs. Sanders. I placed the articles in an evidence bag and tagged the articles
as evidence. These articles were later submitted to the OISC residue lab for analysis.
4. I then returned to the location where the alleged exposure occurred. I took photographs of the
scene and also took leaf samples from the corn plants. The leaf samples were placed in an
Page 1 of 2
evidence bag and tagged as evidence. They were later submitted to the OISC residue lab for
analysis.
View of exposure site
5. I made contact with Craig Stevens, manager of Ceres Solutions at Pleasant Ridge. He stated
that the target field was farmed by Eric Haring. Mr. Stevens further stated that the aerial
application was made by Bi-State Helicopters Inc. I contacted Bi-State Helicopters Inc. and
spoke with Mrs. Karen Rice. Mrs. Rice confirmed that Bi-State Helicopters Inc. had made
the aerial application to Mr. Haring’s field. I advised her of the complaint made by Mrs.
Sanders. She stated Chris Babbin was the certified applicator that was flying the airplane.
Mrs. Rice further stated they applied Quilt Xcel fungicide EPA reg. # 100-1324 with the
active ingredients, azoxystrobin and propiconazole. She stated they also applied in the same
tank mix, Superb HC spray adjuvant and InterLock canopy penetrant and drift control agent.
Mrs. Rice emailed to me the application report and the product labels. I advised her that a
pesticide investigation inquiry (PII) would be sent to her. I advised her that I would need it
filled out and returned. This PII is included with this case summary.
6. I checked weather underground website for the wind speed and direction on July 25, 2013 at
the target location. Weather underground showed the winds at the time of the alleged drift
exposure were variable to ESE at 3.5 mph.
7. On August 19, 2013, I received a report from the OISC residue lab. The report indicated the
active ingredient azoxystrobin was detected at 228000.0 NG/C and the active ingredient
propiconazole was detected at 185000.0 NG/C in the complainants clothing samples. The
report further indicated that these same active ingredients were found in the corn leaf samples
taken from the target field. The results of the lab report indicate that there was pesticide drift
from the aerial application, which resulted in exposure to Mrs. Sanders and her children.
8. The product label for Quilt Exel fungicide states “Do not apply this product in a way that
will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift”.
Robert D. Brewer
Disposition: Chris Babbin was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label language regarding drift to people. 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.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1145
Complainant:
175 S. University St.
W. Lafayette, IN 47907
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Hernandez Gomez
Eleazar Juarez
Dawn Fall
Engledow Group
1100 E. 116th St.
Carmel, IN 46032
317-575-1100
Unlicensed Applicator
Certified Supervisor
Licensed Business
1. On August 2, 2013, I observed Mr. Gomez and Mr. Juarez with backpack sprayers at the
Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana spraying weeds in the parking lot. See figures
1 and 2. I learned that the Certified Supervisor, Dawn Fall, was not on site supervising Mr.
Gomez or Mr. Juarez. I spoke with Ms. Fall by telephone.
Figure 1-Mr. Gomez
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
Figure 2-Mr. Juarez
Date: August 26, 2013
Disposition: Dawn Fall was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-2-3, for failure to properly supervise a non-licensed
employee. A civil penalty in the amount of $125.00 was assessed for this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: October 24, 2013
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1174
Complainant:
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Justin Richardson
Marc Weinkauf
Practical Property Group
17924 N. US Highway 31
Westfield, Indiana 46074
317-679-8657
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
On August 14, 2013, I observed a Practical Property Group employee making an application
from a backpack sprayer to the common area at Centennial subdivision in Hamilton County.
At the conclusion of the application, I introduced myself to the applicator, Justin
Richardson, and initiated a pesticide use and licensing inspection.
2.
Mr. Richardson had not heard of the OISC and he indicated he had not taken an exam nor
did he have an applicator license. I asked what herbicide he was spraying and he indicated
he was not sure. He reported that he does not mix the herbicide and that he just used what is
in the sprayer. We located a container of Gly Star Plus (EPA Reg. #342750-61), active
ingredient glyphosate, in the back of the truck and determined that was the herbicide being
applied. I explained the licensing and supervision requirements to Mr. Richardson and
instructed him to cease making applications. He stated his supervisor was Marc Weinkauf.
3.
I spoke with Mr. Weinkauf on the phone and informed him of the situation. He indicated
Mr. Richardson likely got done with his portion of mowing at the property and picked up the
sprayer to help out. According to Mr. Weinkauf, it is not common for Mr. Richardson to
spray but he had not been instructed NOT to make applications. He indicated there are no
records for spot applications made by Mr. Richardson but he has sprayed a few times. Mr.
Weinkauf later indicated he instructed Mr. Richardson not to handle herbicides in the future.
Page 1 of 2
4.
During the application, Mr. Richardson was wearing long pants, a short-sleeved shirt and
boots. The Gly Star Plus label reads, in part, “Applicators and other handlers must wear:
1. Long-sleeved shirt and long pants, 2. Shoes plus socks.”
Andrew R. Roth
Disposition: Marc Weinkauf was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to insure the use of label-required personal protective
equipment. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Marc Weinkauf was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to properly supervise a non-licensed employee. A civil penalty
in the amount of $125.00 was assessed for this violation.
Total amount of civil penalty assessed for this investigation is $375.00.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1185
Complainant:
Stephenie Murchland
4630 W 700 N
Markle, IN 46770
260-758-2571
Respondent:
Nicholas Yoder
Nicks Flying Service, Inc.
950 N 450 E
LaGrange, IN 46761
260-499-4710
1.
CertifiedApplicator
Licensed Business
On August 20, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a complaint from the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) regarding an alleged drift from an
aerial pesticide application. Ms. Karla Frownfelter, Complaint Coordinator for IDEM advised she
had received the complaint from Mrs. Stephenie Murchland.
2. On August 21, 2013, I made contact with Mrs. Murchland via telephone. I made an appointment to
meet with her at her residence on August 26, 2013.
3. On August 26, 2013, I met with Mrs. Murchland and her husband Max Murchland at their
residence. Mrs. Murchland stated on Friday July 25, 2013 in the early afternoon, a yellow airplane
was making an aerial application to the bean field located directly west of her property. She stated
the wind was blowing out of the west at the time of the application. She stated she could smell a
foul odor and observed a mist coming across her property and into her house. She stated she had
the windows open and the foul odor was present inside of her house. Mrs. Murchland stated the
field was farmed by Mr. Steve Best.
4. I then took photographs of the property. I collected swab samples from the west and east side
windows of the house. I collected a swab sample from the windshield of a Jeep, parked in the back
yard. I also collected soil samples and bean plant samples from the target field, as well as
vegetation samples from the Murchland’s property. The samples were labeled and later submitted
to the OISC residue lab for analysis.
View of Murchland property
View of target field against Murchland property
Page 1 of 2
5. I made contact with Mr. Nick Yoder of Nick’s Flying Service Inc. He stated he had made the aerial
pesticide application to the target field on July 25, 2013. He stated he applied Stratego YLD
fungicide EPA Reg. 264-1093 with the active ingredient trifloxystrobin and prothioconazole. Also
in the tank mix was Utilize and water. Mr. Yoder supplied me with a copy of the completed aerial
work order.
6. On November 5, 2013, I made contact with Mr. Yoder via telephone. I had not received the
Pesticide Investigation Inquiry (PII) from Mr. Yoder. He stated he was not sure if he had received
the PII. I asked him if he wish for me to have another one sent to him. He stated that he was fine
with me just using the completed aerial work order.
7. I researched the Weather Underground website for the wind conditions on July 25, 2013. The
website indicated the wind was NW at 1 mph to 7 mph. The label for Stratego YLD fungicide
reads the following for aerial applications. Do not make applications when conditions favor drift
beyond the target application area.
8. On October 30, 2013, I received a report from the OISC residue lab. The report indicated, the
active ingredient trifloxystrobin was detected in the swab sample taken from the west side of the
house at 67.4 nanograms per swab (ng/s). The report further indicated, the active ingredient
trifloxystrobin was detected in the swab sample taken from the east side of the house at 4.79 ng/s.
The report also indicated, the active ingredient trifloxystrobin was detected in the swab sample
taken from the jeep at 2.55 ng/s. The results from the lab report would indicate there was pesticide
drift from the west, as the amount of trifloxystrobin on the west side of the house was greater than
the amount detected on the east side of the house.
9. The lab results, along with the wind conditions on the day of the application, would indicate
pesticide from the aerial application to the target field did drift onto the Murchland’s property.
Robert D. Brewer
Disposition: Nicholas Yoder was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and
Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding drift to a non-target site. A civil
penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the
fact this was his third violation of similar nature (See case numbers 2011/1312 and 2012/1006).
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
cc. kfrownfe@idem.in.gov
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case#2013/1186
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Dave Alverson
Donald Ross Golf Club
7102 S Calhoun Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46807
260-745-7093
1.
The Office of Indiana State Chemist received anonymous information indicating pesticide applications
were being made at Donald Ross Golf Club without having a certified applicator on staff.
2.
On August 28, 2013, I went to Donald Ross Golf Club and informed managing partner Dave Alverson of
the complaint. Mr. Alverson indicated that applications in 2013 had been made by himself and Jeff Feasel,
both registered technicians. He stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Feasel was preparing to take
the Category 3b (turf) exam, but when he recently pressed Mr. Feasel about it, he left the golf course. Mr.
Alverson stated applications in prior years were made by certified applicator Kevin Norris, who split time
between Sycamore Golf Course (North Manchester, IN) and Donald Ross Golf Club. Mr. Alverson
indicated he was aware that the golf course needs a certified applicator to make or supervise applications
and takes responsibility for being out of compliance. He provided a written statement and copies of
application records.
3.
We discussed the options available to come into compliance. Mr. Alverson indicated that he would employ
certified applicator and current superintendent at Timber Ridge Golf Course in Bluffton, Indiana, Joel
Vanlandingham, to be his certified applicator as a short-term fix until he could obtain his certification. We
discussed the licensing procedures and the OISC received an application for a second credential for Mr.
Vanlandingham on September 4, 2013. That application was subsequently approved.
4.
Mr. Alverson’s records indicate pesticide applications were made to the golf course by Mr. Feasel on April
15, May 8, June 3, June 5, July 10, July 24 and August 21. Mr. Alverson made an application on August 7.
Andrew R. Roth
DISPOSITION: Donald Ross Golf Club was cited for eight (8) 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 $2,000.00 (8 counts x $250.00
per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was reduced to $600.00. Consideration was given to
the fact Donald Ross Golf Club cooperated during the investigation; corrective action was taken; there was
no previous history of similar nature and no restricted use pesticides were involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1192
Complainant:
175 S University St.
W. Lafayette, IN 47907
800-894-6637
Respondent:
Chuck Jones
Bruce McIntyre
AAA Exterminating
4412 E. Conner
Noblesville, IN 46060
317-773-6266
Licensed Business
1. On August 29, 2013, I received an email from an “anonymous” individual alleging that AAA
Exterminating had an unlicensed applicator making applications without supervision. The
“anonymous” email claimed that the invoice bears the name “Spike” and the unlicensed
individual’s last name is “Jones”.
2. On September 4, 2013, I went to AAA Exterminating in Noblesville, Indiana. I spoke with
James Muir, General Manager. I questioned Mr. Muir if AAA had an employee named
“Jones”. Mr. Muir stated the name was not familiar but they had a new employee named
“Spike”. Bruce McIntyre, owner of AAA, over heard my conversation with Mr. Muir and
confirmed AAA had an employee named Chuck Jones who went by the name “Spike”. Mr.
McIntyre admitted to sending Mr. Jones out on perimeter exterior only jobs. Mr. McIntyre
stated he tried to get Mr. Jones into a training class but the classes were full. Mr. McIntyre
took full responsibility for Mr. Jones being unlicensed and out on routes. Mr. Muir called
Mr. Jones back to the business.
3. On September 4, 2013, I spoke with Leslie Dickman, Vice President for AAA. Ms. Dickman
stated she scheduled Mr. Jones to take the CORE Exam for September 10, 2013. Ms.
Dickman stated she would copy and send all invoices for work completed by Mr. Jones.
4. On September 6, 2013, I received a pack of invoices for work done by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones
applied pesticides for hire without a licenses on the following days;
7/31/13
8/14/13
8/26/13
8/05/13
8/15/13
8/27/13
8/06/13
8/16/13
8/29/13
8/08/13
8/21/13
Page 1 of 2
8/09/13
8/22/13
8/13/13
8/23/13
5. On September 11, 2013, I received an email from Ms. Dickman claiming Chuck Jones took
and passed the Core exam at an H&R Block in Indianapolis, Indiana. Ms. Dickman’s email
stated that an application was submitted for Mr. Jones to receive a Registered Technician
(RT) credential.
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
Disposition: Bruce McIntyre was cited for fifteen (15) counts of violation of section 65(6) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to properly supervise a non-licensed
employee. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,875.00 was assessed for this violation.
However, the civil penalty was reduced to $1,406.25. Consideration was given to the fact
Mr. McIntyre cooperated during the investigation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1214
Complainant: Autumn Morris
616 Middlebury Street Apt 2
Goshen, Indiana 46528
574-326-7738
Respondent: Bugsy’s Elkhart Exterminating Co. Inc.
Richard (Rick) Jozwiak
2025 Middlebury
Elkhart, Indiana 46516
574-293-3724
Involved:
5-Star Property Managers
c/o Todd Meier
1849 W. Lincoln Ave.
Goshen, Indiana 46526
574-533-8787
Employee/ Representative
1. On Thursday September 5th, 2013, Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a
complaint from Autumn Morris alleging Bugsy’s Elkhart Exterminating Co. Inc. made an
improper pesticide spray application while treating her apartment for bed bugs.
2. On September 9th, 2013, I met Autumn Morris at her apt and conducted a walk through with
her while she explained why she felt the pesticide spray application made to her apartment
was improper. Mrs. Morris told me the Property Management Company in charge of her
apartment hired Bugsy’s to make a pesticide spray application for bed bugs. Mrs. Morris met
with Rick Jozwiak, the owner and Certified Applicator for Bugsy’s at about 8:30am on
Tuesday September 3rd 2013. Mr. Jozwiak and Mrs. Morris spoke about the application and
she left the apartment. Mrs. Morris told me she returned about six hours later to find her
furniture overturned and “drenched” with pesticide solution. Mrs. Morris called the Property
Management Company and a representative returned to her apartment with Rick Jozwiak. The
furniture was put back in place. Mrs. Morris protested the fact the furniture was still wet with
the pesticide applied. Mrs. Morris told me she was concerned for the safety of her family so
she stayed out of her apartment. Mrs. Morris called another pesticide company with questions
about the pesticide spray application which was made to her apartment furnishings. Mrs.
Morris was advised to obtain a copy of the label for the pesticide(s) applied and to pay
specific attention to the portion of the label that address “re-entry” and method or directions
for application. Mrs. Morris showed me all her mattresses, her couch and the interiors of her
dresser drawers. Mrs. Morris pointed out the stain lines where the pesticide spray application
was made to her three day old bed mattress (see fig. 1) and all the overspray in the dresser
drawers and bookshelf (see fig. 2 and 3). Mrs. Morris also pointed to a lawn chair in her
kitchen which had pesticide spray solution dripping onto her floor in a puddle (see fig. 4).
Page 1 of 4
Mrs. Morris told me she went to Bugsy’s and obtained a copy of the label for the pesticide
used. The label provided was for:
• Temprid SC, Active Ingredient-imidacloprid 21%/B-Cyfluthrin 10.5% EPA Reg# 4321483.
Mrs. Morris studied the label and when she found what she believed to be an off label
application in this case, she notified OISC.
3. I took the following photographs which document what Mrs. Morris showed me.
•
•
•
•
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Figure 1 shows a stain line from the pesticide spray application that extends well onto the
flat portion of the mattress.
Figure 2 shows overspray of the pesticide spray well onto the flat portion of the drawer
interior.
Figure 3 shows spray residue from the pesticide spray application along a flat portion of
the bookshelf.
Figure 4 is the lawn chair which the victim told me was “dripping” from the pesticide
spray application made to it. The victim pointed out the two dried puddles on the floor
which can be seen to the left of the chair and toward the carpeted area.
4. I took free swabs of the following areas:
• The lower shelf of the bookcase located in the living room SE corner of the apartment
• The mattress in the NW corner bedroom main floor of the apartment.
• The interior of the top drawer of a walnut colored chest of drawers located in the NE
corner bedroom on the main floor of the apartment.
• The interior of a top drawer to a hutch located in the SW basement bedroom.
• The interior of a top drawer of a light pine color chest of drawers in the SE basement
bedroom.
The swabs were tagged and transported to the OISC Residue Laboratory for analysis.
5. I went to Five Star Property Managers and made contact with Todd Meier. Todd told me he
was aware of the situation with their client Autumn Morris and indicated the company was
going to have her apartment “heat treated” for bed bugs. Todd searched for an invoice from
Bugsy’s but could not find one. Todd gave me the address and contact information for
Bugsy’s.
6. I made contact with the owner and Certified Applicator of Bugsy’s Elkhart Exterminating Co.
Inc., Rick Jozwiak. I identified myself and informed Mr. Jozwiak of the complaint filed
against him. I asked Mr. Jozwiak for his records on the application to Autumn Morris’s
residence and he told me he had not completed the report yet but added he could supply a
detailed statement of what he did.
Page 2 of 4
I took a digitally recorded statement from Mr. Jozwiak in which he details the pesticide spray
application he made for bed bugs in the apartment of Autumn Morris on Tuesday September
3, 2013, from approximately 8:25 am till 12:30 pm.
Mr. Jozwiak told me he used:
• Temprid SC- active ingredient-imidacloprid 21%, b-cyfluthrin 10.5% EPA Reg#4321483.
Mr. Jozwiak said he treated the edges of the couches and all the mattresses in the Morris
residence, all of the areas beneath the dust covers of the furniture and the inside dresser
drawers. I asked Mr. Jozwiak what he told Autumn Morris about “re-entry”. Mr. Jozwiak said
he told her to wait six hours before re-entry. I asked Mr. Jozwiak why he used Temprid SC.
Mr. Jozwiak said he has always had success with that product. I had Mr. Jozwiak read
portions of the Temprid label which I had copied from Labels MSDS .com. The label I had
did not have a section for treatment of bed bugs. Mr. Jozwiak provided an “updated” label
which had an added section for bed bug treatment however; the items we reviewed in the
digitally recorded statement were still on the label that Mr. Jozwiak provided. Mr. Jozwiak
admitted he did not read/review the label for Temprid SC and as such was in violation under
the sections for re-entry and treatment of the furniture beyond the limitations of the label. Mr.
Jozwiak told me he used a hand held pump sprayer and added he was not sure of the pressure
produced by that pump sprayer but indicated clearly it caused the lack of control in the
application. Mr. Jozwiak was called back to The Morris residence on the day of the pesticide
spray application to place the furniture back upright and he was quizzed about the application
sites still being “wet”. Mr. Jozwiak said he contacted his chemical supplier for a better way to
control the pesticide spray application for bed bugs. Mr. Jozwiak was advised to switch to
aerosol spray so he control the spray with a “misting” of the furniture edges which would
reduce or eliminate any over spraying of the pesticide applied and greatly reduce any drying
time in the process.
7. The label for Temprid SC reads in part:
• Re-Entry: Do not contact treated surfaces until dry. People and pets may re-enter after
the treated area is dry.
• Use Temprid SC insecticide as a spot spray or crack and crevice treatments inside
buildings and structures.
• Use a low pressure system, (do not exceed 50 psi at nozzle tip) with a fan-type nozzle to
apply the dilution uniformly
• For infested mattresses, remove linens and wash before reuse. Apply to tufts, seams,
folds, and edges until moist.
• When bed bugs are found in upholstered furniture, apply only to the infested tufts, seams,
folds and edges, but do not apply to flat surfaces where prolonged human contact will
occur.
8. On Tuesday September 3rd, 2013, Certified Applicator Richard Jozwiak made a pesticide
spray application of Temprid SC to the apartment of Autumn Morris. In a sworn statement
given by Mr. Jozwiak he admitted he did not follow the label directions. Mr. Jozwiak
instructed Mrs. Morris to re-enter her apartment after six hours. Mr. Jozwiak used a hand held
pump sprayer with an unknown nozzle tip pressure and made a pesticide spray application of
Temprid SC to areas of furniture that will have prolonged human contact. The resulting
pesticide spray application of the Temprid SC saturated the treated areas and according to
Mrs. Morris took “days” to dry.
Page 3 of 4
9. The digitally recorded statement of Richard Jozwiak was forwarded to be transcribed and
based on that statement, the free swab samples taken at the Morris residence and turned into
the OISC Residue Laboratory were placed on “hold”.
Brian P. Baker
Disposition: Richard Jozwiak was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding pesticide applications
for bed bug treatment. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact there was a potential for human harm.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 4 of 4
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1374
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Rodrigo Hernandez
C&T Lawn and Landscape
16715 Vincennes Ave.
South Holland, IL 60473
219-789-2320
Non-Certified
1. On September 13, 2013, I observed what appeared to be an application of a granular
pesticide or fertilizer to the common grounds of St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church
at 10701 Olcott Ave. in St. John, IN.
2. The person making the application was later identified to me as Mr. Hernandez working
for C&T Lawn and Landscape and he was making an application of Shaw’s Turf Food
18-0-9. See Figures One and Two
Figure One
Figure Two
3. I approached Mr. Hernandez and a co-worker Ricardo Corasso and asked if either of
them possessed an Indiana certification for applying pesticides/fertilizers. It became
apparent very early that they were not aware of what I was referring to and that neither of
them were certified applicators.
4. In checking the OISC data base neither of these gentlemen could be found nor was C&T
Lawn and Landscape found to be a licensed business in Indiana.
Page 1 of 2
5. I then spoke by phone with Mr. Scott Burghgraef who stated he was the supervisor for
Mr. Corasso and Mr. Hernandez. I asked him about the status of an Indiana business
license and he seemed unaware as to what I was referring to. He related to me that they
do have a permit to operate in Lake County and I advised him that was not the same thing
as the Indiana pesticide business license.
6. Mr. Burghgraef then advised that the owner of the company Mr. Timothy Groenewold
was not in the office at the time but that he would be back on Monday and would contact
me at that time. As of the writing of this report I have yet to hear from Mr. Groenewold.
Kevin W. Neal
DISPOSITION: C&T Lawn and Landscape was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides/fertilizer 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 #2013/1387
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Bruce Berry (Bruce)
Gene Berry (Gene)
LuGene Links Golf Course
8687 N. 300 W.
Lake Village, IN 46349
219-992-3337
Non-Certified
1. On September 23, 2013, I conducted an inspection at the above named facility. Upon
arrival I identified myself to Gene who is the owner of the golf course and issued a notice
of inspection.
2. I asked Gene if he or his son Bruce had become a certified applicator since my last visit
and he stated that they had not. I then asked who if anyone was making pesticide
applications to the course and he said that they were doing it.
3. OISC data base does not have any record of LuGene Links having anyone on staff as a
certified applicator.
4. I then asked Gene who was actually making the applications and he said that his son
Bruce was making the applications based on a program set up for them by Mr. Mark
Sampson who is their salesman for the golf course chemicals they have been using.
5. Gene was then able to produce for me the record of their applications for 2013, a copy of
which is included in this file, while the record does indicate what product(s) was applied
and on what day it did not include several of the required record items for golf course
pesticide application. See Figures One, Two and Three
Figure 1
Page 1 of 3
Figure 2
Figure 3
Page 2 of 3
6. A total of 19 pesticide applications were made in 2013 by Bruce beginning on April 8
and the last being on September 16.
7. I spoke with Bruce who confirmed that he did indeed make the applications.
8. It should be noted that Mr. Sampson was present at the time of my visit and inquired as to
whether he could act as the certified applicator for LuGene Links as he is a certified
applicator. Mr. Sampson has a category 3B certification as not for hire with Direct
Solutions. I explained to Mr. Sampson that he would have to also hold a credential for
LuGene Links and that he would have to be present during any and all pesticide
applications.
Kevin W. Neal
DISPOSITION: LuGene Links was cited for nineteen (19) 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 licensed applicator. A
civil penalty in the amount of $9,500.00 (19 counts x $500.00 per count) was assessed for
this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this is their second violation of similar
nature. See case number 2010/1188.
However, the civil penalty was reduced to $6,650.00. Consideration was given to the fact
LuGene Links cooperated during the investigation and no restricted use pesticides were
involved.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 3 of 3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1428
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Richard Shamo
Brett Cruea
Lafayette Country Club (LCC)
1500 S. 9th St.
Lafayette, IN 47905
765-567-2167
Non-Certified
1. On September 30, 2013, while driving south on S. 9th St. near the LCC I observed who was later
identified to me as Mr. Cruea making an application of what appeared to be some sort of
pesticide to the fairways of the LCC.
2. I could see that Mr. Cruea was not wearing a long sleeved shirt or gloves at the time of the
application nor did it appear he was wearing any protective eyewear. I also observed that there
were golfers on the course in the fairway directly behind where Mr. Cruea had just made an
application.
3. I then went to the maintenance barn for LCC and was able to make contact with Mr. Shamo who
is the certified applicator and superintendent for LCC. Mr. Shamo advised Mr. Cruea was
applying Curalan Fungicide EG (Curalan) (EPA Reg#7969-224) active ingredient vinclozolin.
4. The label for Curalan states, “Applicators must wear coveralls over long sleeved shirt and long
pants, chemical resistant gloves, chemical resistant footwear plus socks, protective eyewear,
chemical resistant headgear for overhead exposure.” The label also states, “Entry RestrictionDO NOT enter or allow others to enter until sprays have dried.”
5. After reviewing the label with Mr. Shamo we went onto the course found Mr. Cruea and had him
to stop any further applications to the course.
Kevin W. Neal
DISPOSITION: Richard Shamo was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding ensuring the use of
personal protective equipment and reentry into an area where a pesticide application had
occurred. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed. Consideration was given to the
fact there was a potential for human harm to both Mr. Cruea and the golfers.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0001
Complainant:
Anonymous
Respondent:
Kyle McCormick
Robert Lemmons
Longs Lawn Spray, Inc.
P.O. Box 17
Salem, IN 47167
812-883-2000
Licensed Business
1. On October 1, 2013, the office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information from an
anonymous source claiming that an unknown male was making lawn applications. However,
Longs Lawn Spraying Inc. has only one applicator, Robert Lemmons.
2. On October 14, 2013, I spoke with Robert Lemmons. Mr. Lemmons stated Kyle McCormick had
been making applications and he would provide copies of all invoices. Mr. Lemmons stated Kyle
had taken and passed the CORE exam. Mr. Lemmons stated he forgot to apply for Kyle’s
Registered Technician (RT) credential.
3. On October 14, 2013, Mr. Lemmons sent me a copy of Mr. McCormick’s CORE test results and a
copy of Mr. McCormick’s application for RT credential. Furthermore, Mr. Lemmons provided
invoices for work performed by Mr. McCormick without an RT credential. Mr. McCormick
performed service on the following days; 10/7/13, 10/8/13, 10/9/13, and 10/10/13.
4. As of October 21, 2013, Kyle McCormick has a valid Registered Technician credential.
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
Disposition: Robert Lemmons was cited for four (4) 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 $500.00 (4 counts x
$125.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty was reduced to $250.00.
Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Lemmons cooperated during the investigation; corrective
action was taken; and no restricted use pesticides were involved. It was also a consideration Mr.
Lemmons gained financially due to this violation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0074
Complainant: Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
765-494-1585
Respondent: Swat Pest Management
2501 N Cullen Ave.
Evansville, IN 47715
812-476-9708
Daniel Jenkins
Licensed Business
1. On October 22, 2013, I conducted a termite pretreatment records inspection for an
application made by Swat Pest Management on April 1, 2013, to a site located in Ireland,
Indiana.
2. I met with Kevin Rutledge, Termite Manager for Swat. Mr. Rutledge indicated the preconstruction termite application had been made by Daniel Jenkins, however, Mr. Jenkins was
no longer employed at Swat. Mr. Rutledge also informed me that Swat had not completed
the exterior perimeter treatment yet for the site located in Ireland. Mr. Rutledge gave me
copies of the records for the initial treatment completed by Mr. Jenkins.
3. I reviewed the application record and graph information. The records indicated Premise 2
(EPA Reg. # 432-1331; active ingredient: imidacloprid) was used to treat the structure. The
records did not provide information to indicate if gravel fill was present during the horizontal
application and this information was unknown. The following calculations were conducted
from the record information provided:
•
•
•
•
•
•
2604 horizontal square feet x .15 gallons (if gravel fill present)/10 square feet = 390.6
gallons needed
2604 horizontal square feet x .10 gallons (if dirt fill present)/10 square feet = 260.4
gallons needed
357 inside perimeter linear feet x 4 gallons/10 linear feet x 1 foot depth to footer = 142.8
gallons needed
25 inside perimeter linear feet x 4 gallons/10 linear feet x 4 foot depth to footer = 40
gallons needed
Total use dilution required by label = 573.4 gallons (with gravel fill)/442.8 gallons (with
dirt fill).
Total use dilution applied = 300 gallons
4. Based on the calculations above, if gravel fill was present during the initial application, the
treatment was 273.4 gallons short of use dilution or 48% short. If gravel fill was not present,
the application was 142.8 gallons short of use dilution or 33% short.
Page 1 of 2
5. The Premise 2 label stated the following, “Apply an overall treatment to the entire surface of
soil or other substrate to be covered by the slab including areas to be under carports,
porches, basement floor and entrance platforms. Apply at the rate of 1 gallon of solution to
accurately and uniformly cover 10 square feet. If fill under slab is gravel or other coarse
aggregate, apply at the rate of 1.5 gallons or sufficient volume of solution, to accurately and
uniformly cover 10 square feet. In addition, apply 4 gallons of solution per 10 linear feet to
provide a uniform treated zone in soil at critical areas such as along the inside of foundation
walls…”
Scott M. Farris
Disposition: Daniel Jenkins was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding termiticide application.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0372
Complainant: Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
Examinee:
Examinee:
Francisco Lopez
Energy Group, Inc.
8837 Lyndon St.
Detroit, MI 48238
unlicensed test taker
Uriel Reyes
Energy Group, Inc.
8837 Lyndon St.
Detroit, MI 48238
unlicensed test taker
1. On December 19, 2013, I proctored an exam session at Purdue University, Stewart
Center. As part of my pre-exam instructions I told the group that they were not allowed
to refer to any study material, notes or manuals during the exam. I also told the
examinees that they could not talk to their neighbor or look at their neighbor’s exam or
have any electronic device operating during the exam. Examinees were told three
separate times that all cell phones must be off while in the room.
2. Mr. Reyes turned in his exam materials and sat back down with three other Energy Group
examinees. Mr. Reyes and another exam taker who had completed his exam as well
began using their cell phones. They were not talking on their phones, but they were using
the text or other capabilities. I approached both (they were side by side) and advised that
they immediately turn off the devices or leave the room. One individual left
immediately, stating that he thought it was okay since he was finished with the exam.
Mr. Reyes remained seated and put his cell phone out of sight.
3. I went back to the front of the room and spoke with several people turning in their exams.
When I looked at Mr. Reyes again, he and Mr. Lopez were having a conversation. Mr.
Lopez, who is also an Energy Group examinee, was seated directly behind Mr. Reyes. At
that point I instructed Mr. Reyes that he had to leave the room and I escorted him to the
door. I then returned to Mr. Lopez and advised him that due to his conversation with Mr.
Reyes, he too was being instructed to leave the exam session.
4. The exam cover page states, “During the examination: you may not consult notes,
training manual, or any other unauthorized materials. Talking is prohibited and
Page 1 of 2
electronic communication devices must be turned off. Direct any questions that you have
to the proctor only. Providing or receiving unauthorized assistance is expressly
prohibited. The examination process will be terminated for any individuals who fail to
comply with these or other specified examination procedures.”
Leo A. Reed
Manager, Certification and Licensing
Disposition: Francisco Lopez and Uriel Reyes were cited for violation of section 65(6) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-1-2.1, for failure to
follow examination procedures set forth by the Office of Indiana State Chemist. As a
result, neither Lopez nor Reyes will be allowed to take a pesticide certification exam for a
period of five (5) years from the date of this report.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
A Summary of Cases
2013/0996
Disposition: Cole Stephens was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
a 200 foot setback from natural or impounded lakes and reservoirs as required by
the Lexar EZ label. A civil penalty in the amount of $100.00 was assessed for this
violation. Consideration was given to the fact Lexar EZ is a restricted use
pesticide and environmental harm occurred.
2013/1063
the fact this is her twelfth violation of similar nature.
2013/1102
Disposition: Judith Walker was cited for violation 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 $1,000.00
was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact this was her
thirteenth violation of similar nature.
2013/1114
Disposition: John Layne was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana
drift to people. 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.
2013/1161
Disposition: Ryan Meinika was cited for two 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 to a non-certified individual. A civil penalty
in the amount of $250.00 (two counts x $125.00 per count) was assessed.
2013/1403
Disposition: Jeremy Zhao and Hibachi Grill were cited for violation of section
65(16) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for knowingly
purchasing or using a pesticide product that was not registered under IC 15-16-4.
Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Zhao attempted to deceive and did not
fully cooperate with the investigators during this investigation.
In addition, this information was forwarded to US EPA Criminal Investigation
Division (CID) for their review.
2014/0127
Disposition: Conseal International Inc. was cited for violation of section 57(5) of
the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for producing a pesticide product that is
misbranded for having a false and misleading active ingredient statement. A civil
penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Conseal International Inc. was cited for violation of section 57(9) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for producing a pesticide that violates the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for producing a pesticide
product that fails to qualify for the FIFRA 25(b) exemption and therefore, should
be registered as a pesticide. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed
for this violation.
A total of $500.00 in civil penalties was assessed for this investigation.
2014/0132
Disposition:
A. On June 14, 2013, OISC issued a Stop Sale Use or Removal Order to Coeus
Technology, Inc. for the Monofoil and Ultra products because the label/labeling for
those products made pesticidal claims but were not registered with US EPA or the
Office of Indiana State Chemist.
B. On July 15, 2013, Coeus Technology Inc. sold twelve (12) one gallon containers of
the unregistered pesticide product MonoFoil 1.3% to Texon Athletic in direct
violation of the Stop Sale Use or Removal Order.
C. On July 17, 2013, Coeus Technology Inc., in direct violation of the OISC Stop
Sale Use or Removal Order, sold the unregistered pesticide products:
a. One 55 gallon drum of MonoFoil Liquid 1.3% Turf Application;
b. Two, five gallon pails of MonoFoil Antimicrobial – Turf;
D. On September 12, 2013, in direct violation of the OISC Stop Sale Use or Removal
Order, Coeus Technology Inc. sold the unregistered pesticide products:
a. 40, one gallon containers of MonoFoil 1.3%;
b. One, 55 gallon drum of TurfBond Antimicrobial for Synthetic Turf.
E. On July 17, 2013, Dave Parker of Coeus Technology Inc., made a pesticide
application for Texon Athletic. Mr. Parker is not licensed to make pesticide
applications for-hire.
F. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for two (2) counts of violation of section 57(1) of
the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for distributing two pesticide products that
were not registered for sale in Indiana. A civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 (2
counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed.
G. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for five (5) counts of violation of section 73(c)
of the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for violation a Stop Sale Use or Removal
order. A civil penalty in the amount of $2,750.00 ($250.00 for the first count;
$500.00 for the second count; $1,000.00 for each additional count).
H. The total amount of civil penalty assessed to Coeus Technology Inc. is $3,250.00.
2014/0134
Disposition:
A. On June 14, 2013, OISC issued a Stop Sale Use or Removal Order to Coeus
Technology, Inc. for the MonoFoil and Ultra products because the label/labeling for
those products made pesticidal claims but the products were not registered with U.S.
EPA or the Office of Indiana State Chemist.
B. On September 16, 2013, Coeus Technology Inc. sold twenty-four (24) five (5)
gallon pails of the unregistered pesticide product MonoFoil Antimicrobial in
unlabeled pails to Phocatox Technologies LLC in Houston, Texas. This sale was in
violation of both, the OISC STOP SALE, USE OR REMOVAL ORDER issued to
Coeus Technology on June 14, 2013 and the U.S. EPA STOP SALE, USE OR
REMOVAL ORDER issued to Coeus Technology on August 15, 2013.
C. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for violation of section 57(1) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for distributing a pesticide product that was not registered
for sale in Indiana. The civil penalty for this violation is per product per year and was
already assessed in case number 2014/0132
D. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for violation of section 73(c) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for violation a Stop Sale Use or Removal order. A civil
penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was
given to the fact this is their second violation of similar nature. See case number
2014/0132.
2014/0137
Disposition: Nolan Brightman was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label language
regarding application near desirable trees. A civil penalty in the amount of
$250.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact
environmental damage occurred.
2014/0170
Disposition: Five Star Landscaping and Property Management was cited for
violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for
applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license.
Effective September 15, 2011, the Indiana registration for Imprelis Herbicide,
EPA Reg. #352-793, was cancelled because it was determined by OISC that the
product is “misbranded” (it bears label directions that are inadequate to prevent
unreasonable adverse effects to non-target vegetation).
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/0996
Complainant:
Eugene Mills
10200 S 1000 E
Upland, Indiana 46989
765-506-2765
Respondent:
Cole Stephens
Arrowhead Farms
19401 N Jonesboro Road
Gaston, IN 47342
765-748-5595
Private applicator
1. On May 31, 2013, Eugene Mills called the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report
fish were killed in his pond as the result of pesticide applications made to a corn field directly
across the road from the pond. He stated the corn field drains directly into his pond via a
culvert.
2. On June 1, 2013, I met Mr. Mills at his residence. I observed the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
There was a corn field directly across the road and east of the Mills property. On the
day of my inspection a clear drainage pattern was visible in the field. The corn field
appeared to drain west toward the county road separating the field from the Mills
property. (See Figure 1).
A closer inspection of the corn field revealed an outlet near the west edge that
appeared to drain the field. The outlet had rocks stacked around it (See Figure 2).
The outlet discovered in the corn field appeared to go under the county road and enter
the Mills property and pond through a black tile (See Figure 3).
There was no other inlet to the Mills pond.
On the day of my inspection there was a total of approximately 50 dead bass, bluegill
and sunfish in varying states of decay.
It was seventy-five feet from the western-most furrow in the corn field to the east
edge of the water in the Mills pond.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Page 1 of 2
Figure 3
According to Mr. Mills, on May 28 or 29 he noticed a lot of foam on his pond near the inlet
and approximately sixty dead crappies. More fish died as the day went on. Mr. Mills
provided me with a sample of dead crappie that he collected and froze soon after he
discovered them in the pond. Mr. Mills stated the corn field was farmed by Arrowhead
Farms. Mr. Mills stated Cole Stephens of Arrowhead Farms told him Force insecticide was
applied to the corn field in mid-May.
3. According to information provided by Arrowhead Farms, two different pesticide applications
were made to the corn field east of the Mills property in May of 2013. The first application
was made on May 13, 2013 by Cole Stephens. He applied Force 3G (EPA Reg. #100-1075,
active ingredient of tefluthrin) to control rootworm. The second application was made on
May 16, 2013, by Jeff Garrison to control grassy and broadleaf weeds. Lexar EZ (EPA Reg.
#100-1414, active ingredients of S-metolachlor and atrazine) and Durango DMA (EPA Reg.
#62719-556, active ingredient of glyphosate) were applied.
4. According to the OISC residue laboratory tefluthrin, the active ingredient in Force 3G, was
confirmed at 24 parts per billion in the fish sample taken from the Mills pond.
5. Lexar EZ is a restricted use pesticide. The Lexar EZ label states, “PRECAUTIONARY
STATEMENTS, …This product must not be applied within 66 ft. of points where field
surface water runoff enters perennial or intermittent streams and rivers or within 200 ft. of
natural or impounded lakes and reservoirs.
Joseph D. Becovitz
Date: February 17, 2014
Disposition: Cole Stephens was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding a 200 foot setback from
natural or impounded lakes and reservoirs as required by the Lexar EZ label. A civil penalty
in the amount of $100.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact
Lexar EZ is a restricted use pesticide and environmental harm occurred.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Draft Date: March 7, 2014
Final Date: April 3, 2014
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1063
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
applications without a license. During those investigations (Case #2013/0615 and Case
#2013/0918), it was determined that Ms. Walker made pesticide applications at two residences
without the supervision or knowledge of certified applicator Bruce Gee, the owner of Affordable
Pest Control. Ms. Walker had taken out a “no-contact order” against Mr. Gee, which kept him
out of his home/business, located at 4816 W. Petty Road (Muncie) at the time, thus allowing her
to control the business and incoming calls. During that time, Ms. Walker informed me that she
planned to take over the business pending Mr. Gee’s trial and subsequent sentencing in
Delaware County.
2.
3.
On June 21, 2013, I received a call from Lt. Steve Cox of the Muncie Police Department
(MPD), with whom I had worked on an earlier investigation involving Ms. Walker (Case
#2013/0918). Lt. Cox indicated he had information about another application site where Ms.
Walker had allegedly been. He stated that a woman was at MPD alleging that Ms. Walker had
been at her home that day on the premise pest control services were needed. The woman
reported to police that Ms. Walker attacked her, tried to choke her with an electrical cord and
attempted to abduct her newborn baby. Lt. Cox indicated the woman fought off Ms. Walker and
escaped with her baby to a neighbor’s house; Ms. Walker then reportedly fled the area. He
Page 1 of 2
indicated the woman was shaken up, but was doing OK. I provided a description of Ms.
Walker’s vehicle as well as her last known address. Ms. Walker was subsequently arrested later
in the day in Anderson, IN.
4.
After speaking to Lt. Cox, I received a call from Blake Everhart, the victim’s husband, who
was also at the MPD. We briefly discussed his wife’s encounter with Ms. Walker and agreed
to meet after things settled down.
5.
On June 24, 2013, Lt. Cox called regarding Ms. Walker’s questioning. He indicated she initially
denied ever being at the Everhart home, but finally admitted she had been there.
6.
On July 9, 2013, I met Mr. Everhart and his wife, Amy, at their home. Mrs. Everhart
reported that she called Affordable Pest Control for an application; Ms. Walker subsequently
made an application at the residence on June 4, 2013. She reportedly had a younger male with
her and sprayed inside and outside of the house. According to the service ticket left at the time
of the application, Talstar (EPA Reg. #279-3206) was applied. Mrs. Everhart indicated Ms.
Walker called and left a message on June 10, 2013, indicating she needed to come back out to
the house to do some baiting. On June 17, 2013, Mrs. Everhart reportedly called and scheduled
the follow-up visit to be done on June 18, 2013. Ms. Walker reportedly sprayed again on the
scheduled day but did not leave any documentation. Mrs. Everhart did not know if any baiting
was done, but reported that Ms. Walker stated she needed to get some “putty for the corners”
and come back again. On June 21, 2013, Ms. Walker reportedly called and left a message, then
showed up at the front door approximately 30 seconds later. Mrs. Everhart stated she believed
Ms. Walker applied a gel prior to the attack and attempted abduction. The Everharts surmised
that Ms. Walker may have planned to carry out the attack and attempted abduction during her
second visit (on June 18), but Mr. Everhart has home at the time.
7.
As part of the original complaint investigation (Case #2013/0615), Ms. Walker was offered a
Andrew R. Roth
DISPOSITION: Judith A. Walker was cited for violation 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 $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact this is her twelfth violation of similar nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
Draft Date: February 26, 2014
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1102
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Applicator:
Judith Walker
Muncie, IN 47302
765-286-9027
Mailing Address:
Judith A. Walker
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
applications without a license. During those investigations (Case #2013/0615 and Case
#2013/0918), it was determined that Ms. Walker made pesticide applications at two residences
without the supervision or knowledge of certified applicator, Bruce Gee, the owner of
Affordable Pest Control. Ms. Walker had taken out a “no-contact order” against Mr. Gee, which
kept him out of his home/business, located at 4816 W. Petty Road (Muncie) at the time, thus
allowing her to control the business and incoming calls. During that time, Ms. Walker informed
me that she planned to take over the business pending Mr. Gee’s trial and subsequent sentencing
in Delaware County.
2.
3. On July 11, 2013, Mr. Gee called and reported he found a note from a customer taped to the door
at the house/business on Petty Road. The customer was concerned about pest control services at
his house at 1500 West Sheffield Drive and at his rental house at 3401 N. New York Avenue in
Muncie, IN. Mr. Gee indicated he believed Ms. Walker may have treated the houses and been
paid for the treatments without his knowledge.
4.
On July 16, 2013, I went to the rental on New York Avenue and spoke with tenant Aaron
Dalton. Mr. Dalton reported that an estimate for a termite treatment had been done at the
Page 1 of 2
house but the application had not been made. He indicated John Moyer, who owns the rental,
would likely have more information. I then met with Mr. Moyer and learned that Mr. Gee had
inspected the rental house and provided the estimate. Mr. Moyer stated he later called and
spoke with Ms. Walker to schedule the treatment at the rental and to request an estimate for
treatment at his house on Sheffield. Ms. Walker reportedly went to his home and provided an
estimate for termite treatment, indicating the structure would be trenched and drilled, but
continually canceled the application for the rental. Mr. Moyer stated Ms. Walker arrived at his
home with Nathan Cooper on June 14, 2013, and used some sort of stick to make a shallow
trench along the west side of his attached garage; they then sprayed outside and inside the
garage using backpack sprayers. Mr. Cooper, who is the nephew of Ms. Walker, was once
licensed with Affordable Pest Control. According to the service ticket left by Ms. Walker at the
time of the application, 30 gallons of Termidor HC (EPA Reg. #7969-329) was applied at Mr.
Moyer’s home for termites. “Bruce G” had been hand-written in the “Serviced By” portion of
the ticket; this was common as Ms. Walker routinely prepared the tickets for applications Mr.
Gee made. Mr. Moyer indicated he paid $950.00 for the treatment and he was concerned that
Ms. Walker may not have even applied any pesticide; Mr. Gee told him that Ms. Walker likely
did not apply Termidor as he did not think she had access to the pesticide. I displayed a photo
lineup which included individual photographs of Ms. Walker and four other women. Mr. Moyer
identified Ms. Walker as the woman who made the application at his home. He circled her
picture and initialed the lineup.
5.
I later checked with Mr. Moyer about the service to his two properties. He indicated Mr.
Gee had treated the rental and his home to his satisfaction.
6.
As part of the original complaint investigation (Case #2013/0615), Ms. Walker was offered a
Andrew R. Roth
DISPOSITION: Judith Walker was cited for violation 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 $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration
was given to the fact this was her thirteenth violation of similar nature.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1114
Complainant:
Ed and Kathy Melshen
3250 W. 266th Street
Sheridan, Indiana 46069
317-432-1844
Respondent:
Milhon Air, Inc.
John Layne
2151 Centerton Road
Martinsville, Indiana 46151
317-831-7464
Licensed Business
Licensed Applicator
1. On July 19, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a complaint regarding
an aerial application drift onto a neighbor’s property.
2. On July 22, 2013, I met with the complainant, Kathy Melshen. She told me on July 18, 2013,
she and her daughter, Sara Saylor (317-200-7786) were in the house when they heard a loud
noise outside. When they went outside to check, they saw an airplane flying low to the
ground, pass overhead. As they went toward the road to locate it again, the plane made
another pass. They could taste something in the air. The complainant was wearing a long
sleeved shirt at the time. She placed the shirt in a sack as instructed by OISC Compliance
Officer Saxton. I placed the shirt in a Mylar bag and marked it “C-1” for submission to the
OISC Residue Lab.
3. I took the following samples for submission to the OISC Residue Lab: (see photos and
diagram below)
PS-1 plant sample PS-2 corn stalk SS-1 swab sample (windshield Dodge SUV)
SS-1 swab sample (farm equipment) S-1 soil sample
Dodge SUV & Farm equipment
Page 1 of 3
Vegetation front yard
4. I made contact with Brent Milhon of Milhon Air Inc. He told me the pilot, John Layne, was
in the hospital with injuries from a recent accident. He agreed to send the pesticide
application records for this case.
5. I received the pesticide application records from Milhon Air Inc. According to the records,
John Layne made an application of Headline AMP (EPA #7969-291; active ingredient:
pyraclostrobin and metconazole) on July 18, 2013. The wind was recorded at five miles per
hour (mph) from the west at 2:00pm to 8:00pm.
6. I obtained the following weather information from www.wunderground.com for July 18,
2013. The wind was blowing 5-10 mph in an easterly direction, parallel to the complainant’s
property. (See table below)
Page 2 of 3
7. I received the following results from the OISC Residue Lab:
Sample Number
20130860/CS-1
Sample Description
Control Swab
20130861/SS-1
Swab Sample- Front Windshield
Dodge SUV
20130862/SS-2
Swab Sample- Farm
Implement/Equipment
20130863/PS-1
Plant Sample-Front Yard
20130864/C-1
Clothing-Complainant
20130865/PS-2
Corn Stalk- Respondent Field
Test
Azoxystrobin
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
Azoxystrobin
Result
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
Azoxystrobin
0.897 NG/S
9.92 NG/S
BDL
BDL
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
Azoxystrobin
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
Azoxystrobin
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
Azoxystrobin
Metconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Propiconazole
5.49 NG/S
32.3 NG/S
2.35 NG/S
2.09 PPB
18.8 PPB
41.2 PPB
2.63 PPB
148.0 NG/C
272.0 NG/C
676.0 NG/C
BDL
5.98 PPB
20.0 PPB
78.4 PPB
3.86 PPB
BDL=Below Detectable Limits PPB=Parts Per Billion NG/S=Nanograms/Swab NG/C=Nanograms/Cloth
8. The label for Headline AMP reads in part, ”Do not apply this product in a way that will
contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift.”
Kevin W. Gibson
Disposition: John Layne was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use
and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding drift to people. 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.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 3 of 3
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1161
Complainant:
Edward Arnold
4620 Manistee Drive
Fort Wayne, IN 46835
260-485-0574
Applicator:
Supervisor:
Ken Evans
Ryan Meinika
RD Meinika dba Spring Green
335 E. CR400N
Columbia City, IN 46725
260-229-2484
Not Licensed
Licensed Business
1.
On August 5, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information from
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) indicating the agency
received a complaint from Edward Arnold regarding a lawn care application to his
neighbor’s property in Fort Wayne, IN. Mr. Arnold reported that the odor from the
application was so strong that he and his wife had to leave their home.
2.
On August 8, 2013, I received the complaint information for follow-up and called Mr.
Arnold. There was no answer so I left a message. Later that day, I went to Mr. Arnold’s
residence at the above listed address. No one answered the door. I then spoke with the
neighbor at 4614 Manistee Drive, Debbie Stabler, and informed her of the complaint. Mrs.
Stabler indicated a lawn application had been made three days prior. She produced the
service ticket left by the applicator which indicated Ken Evans applied fertilizer and Mec
Amine-D broadleaf herbicide to her lawn at 8:48am on August 5, 2013.
3.
On the evening of August 8, 2013, I received a call from Mr. Arnold. He indicated he and
his wife awoke to the strong odor from the application on August 5 and had to leave their
home. Mr. Arnold stated he is retired and feels he should be able to enjoy his life. He
reportedly called Spring Green about the application, but the person he talked to did not
seem to care. I informed Mr. Arnold that I would follow up with the applicator, but there is
no regulation regarding the odor of the products applied.
4.
A check of OISC records indicated Mr. Evans is not a licensed applicator. I spoke with
Spring Green manager Ryan Meinika about the complaint and the licensing status of Mr.
Evans. He indicated Mr. Evans has been trained but he had not attempted the Core exam to
become a registered technician. Mr. Meinika reported that he was attending a conference
out of town when the application was made to the Stabler property. He indicated he would
not allow Mr. Evans to make applications on his own if he did not feel he was ready to do
so. I informed Mr. Meinika that an unlicensed applicator must have a certified applicator
Page 1 of 2
on-site when making a for-hire pesticide application. Mr. Meinika apologized and stated he
was unaware he was not in compliance.
5.
According to information provided by Mr. Meinika, which included copies of application
records and a written statement, Mr. Evans made applications without on-site supervision on
August 5 and August 6, 2013. Mr. Evans passed the Core exam on August13, 2013, and
obtained his registered technician credential.
6.
Upon reviewing the Mec Amine-D label, it was determined that no label violation was
committed in making the application in question.
Andrew R. Roth
Date: January 17, 2014
DISPOSITION: Ryan Meinika was cited for two 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 to a non-certified individual. A civil penalty in the amount of
$250.00 (two counts x $125.00 per count) was assessed.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Cc:
Karla Frownfelter
Complaint Coordinator
Office of the Chief of Staff – Media Services
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
KFrownfe@idem.IN.gov
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2013/1403
Complainant:
Zach Bell
Arrow Services
9366 Castle Gate Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana
317-842-4270
District Manager
Involved:
Bradley Harvey
9366 Castle Gate Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana
317-501-0300
Programmer/Certified Applicator
Respondent:
Jeremy Zhao
Hibachi Grill
5567 Scatterfield Rd.
765-393-0118
Manager
Zhen Lin Chen
4613 Oaklawn Drive Apt. D
917-325-9906
Owner/ Hibachi Grill-Anderson IN
Chen Bin Zhen
No address given
917-859-0388
Employee/Hibachi Grill-Anderson IN
Chen Zhen
No address given
718-290-4767
Friend/Recommended pesticide
Others
Involved:
1. On Thursday September 26, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a
complaint from Arrow Service’s Indianapolis office. The Office Programmer for Arrow Services,
Brad Harvey, was allegedly given a bottle with an unidentified liquid substance which was being
used by a restaurant manager as a pesticide. The bottle had a label on it which contained Chinese
characters preceded by the letters “PCY”. OISC Laboratory Director Ping Wan was able to
translate the characters into English and found the label read:
•
“Kills small insects, ants and house flies Use direction: dilute with 6 pounds of water; spray
walls at night Very importantly, do this with a brain, do not get caught by Department of
Public health.”
Page 1 of 9
2. On Friday September 27, 2013, I met Brad Harvey in his Indianapolis office. I was joined by
OISC Agent Paul J. Kelly. Mr. Harvey turned the unknown bottled liquid over to us and was
provided a copy of the OISC Pesticide Sample Collection Report. The sample was tagged with
OISC formulation sample tag# 2013-1102 and then sealed in an evidence collection bag with an
EPA seal. I photographed the sample prior to collection and then after collection (see figures 14).
Fig. 1
•
•
•
•
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Figure one shows most of the written letters and characters from left to right.
Figure two the sample is rotated clockwise so that more characters can be seen.
Figure three the sample is rotated clockwise again to show the last of the characters.
Figure four shows the sample collected tagged and sealed for transport to The OISC
Laboratory.
3. Mr. Harvey provided a statement which was digitally recorded. In Mr. Harvey’s statement he
said he was out of the office and working service calls in the field on Wednesday, September 25,
2013, because of a personnel shortage. Mr. Harvey took a route which was usually serviced by
Arrow employee John Nelson. Included in the route was the Hibachi Grill at 5567 Scatterfield
Rd. Anderson Indiana. While servicing the Hibachi Grill establishment, Mr. Harvey asked the
manager what he used to control flies. The manager, known only as “Jeremy”, allegedly told Mr.
Harvey that he treated for flies by making a pesticide spray application of a product he gets from
China. Mr. Harvey said Jeremy showed him the bottle which is depicted in photo figures 1-3 of
this report. Mr. Harvey said Jeremy did not know what the liquid pesticide was. When Jeremy
offered him the bottle, he accepted it only to turn it in to OISC. Mr. Harvey made a pesticide
spray application at the Hibachi Grill using the following product:
•
Suspend Polyzone-active ingredient-deltamethrin, EPA Reg. #432-1514.
Mr. Harvey notified his supervisor Zach Bell who in turn notified OISC. Mr. Harvey brought the
small bottle of unknown liquid pesticide back to his office in Indianapolis and placed it into a
small zip-lock baggie.
Mr. Harvey said he saw a box with approximately 4-6 bottles which were identical to the one the
Manager of Hibachi Grill gave him. The box with the bottles was located inside the Hibachi Grill
at the top of some stairs which lead to a storage area and then to the left of those same steps.
When Mr. Harvey asked questions about the application of the unknown liquid pesticide, Jeremy
allegedly told him he mixes it with water into a sprayer and then he or one of his employees
sprays it. Mr. Harvey said when he and Jeremy were speaking about the unknown liquid
pesticide, Jeremy was also including his cook in the conversation but the two spoke a foreign
language which Mr. Harvey could not understand.
4. Mr. Harvey provided an Arrow Services Daily service and sales report for Wednesday
September 25, 2013, which included the service call at the Anderson Indiana Hibachi Restaurant.
Mr. Harvey did not have the invoice and explained all invoices are sent to and retained at the
Page 2 of 9
Arrow Services Plymouth, Indiana location. Arrangements were made to pick up the invoices on
Thursday October 3, 2013.
5. I was able to meet with Arrow Services employee John Nelson at a job site on Pendleton Pike in
Indianapolis Indiana. Mr. Nelson gave a statement which was digitally recorded. Mr. Nelson
indicated he usually services the Hibachi Grill in Anderson Indiana but on the previous
Wednesday, September 25, 2013, they were short on personnel and he had to take a different
service route. Mr. Nelson said Brad Harvey took his route that day. Mr. Nelson said that he
always treats the Hibachi Grill in Anderson with a pesticide spray application of Suspend
Polyzone-active ingredient-deltamethrin-EPA Reg. #432-1514.
6. I transported the formulation sample of the unknown liquid pesticide to the OISC Formulation
Laboratory and turned it over to Natalie Wilson for analysis. The digitally recorded statements of
Brad Harvey and John Nelson were forwarded for transcription.
7. On Friday September 27th 2013, OISC Formulation Laboratory personnel analyzed the sample of
the unknown liquid pesticide and the analysis results indicated the sample of liquid pesticide was
“cypermethrin”. A full quantitative run of the sample was requested. A list of fifty nine different
Site Categories for the active ingredient “cypermethrin” was compiled by Ed White of OISC.
8. OISC Agent Paul J. Kelly conducted a Goggle search of the Hibachi Grill in Anderson Indiana
and found several interior photos of the business. The name on the photos was “Jeremy Zhao”
and as such it is only assumed at this time Jeremy Zhao is the same “Jeremy” referred to as the
Manager of the Hibachi Grill in Anderson Indiana. The photos are in the case file.
9. On Wednesday October 2, 2013, I contacted the Madison County Health Department and spoke
to Health Inspector Stephanie Cain. I briefed Mrs. Cain on the case and set up a meeting with her
for the following day. On Thursday October 3, 2013, I met Mrs. Cain at her office in Anderson. I
provided a copy of the case report to her. Mrs. Cain reviewed the report and based on the report
findings to that point and the discussion we had, Mrs. Cain felt an inspection of the Hibachi Grill
was in order. The inspection was set for Friday October 4, 2013, at 9:30am.
10. On Thursday October 3, 2013, after meeting with Mrs. Cain in Anderson, I called Arrow Pest
Control in Plymouth Indiana and spoke to Jane Green about obtaining copies of all the invoices
they had on the Hibachi Grill for the past two years. Mrs. Green asked me to meet with the Vice
President (VP) of Arrow and brief him. I met with Don Green, the VP of Arrow, and briefed him
on the case and explained what I needed from Arrow. Mr. Green asked Mrs. Jane Green to
collect all the invoices for the Hibachi Grill. I was able to secure the invoice from September 25,
2013, prior to leaving. The invoices I requested were e-mailed on Friday October 4, 2013.
11. I reviewed the 15 invoices and found the following products were used by Arrow Pest Control
at the Hibachi Grill in Anderson Indiana:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Suspend Polyzone: active ingredient-deltamethrin 4.75% EPA Reg# 432-1514
Maxforce Quantum Ant Bait: active ingredient- imidacloprid .03% EPA Reg# 432-1506
Maxforce FC Magnum Roach Killer Bait Gel: active ingredient-fipronil .05% EPA Reg#
432-1460
Advion Cockroach Gel Bait: active ingredient-indoxacarb .6% EPA Reg# 352-652
Advion Ant Gel: active ingredient- indoxacarb .05% EPA Reg# 352-746
Contrac Blox: active ingredient- bromadiolone .005% EPA Reg#12455-79
Page 3 of 9
•
•
•
Ditrac Blox: active ingredient- diphacinone .005% EPA Reg# 12455-80
Formus Blox: active ingredient- brodifacoum .0025% EPA Reg# 12455-108
Cy-Kick: active ingredient- cyfluthrin 6.0% EPA Reg# 499-304
12. On Friday October 4, 2013, at 9:30am, I met Stephanie Cain of the Madison County Health
Department at Hibachi Grill in Anderson Indiana. I was accompanied by OISC Residue
Laboratory Supervisor Ping Wan and OISC Agent Paul J. Kelly.
13. At approximately 10:30am, employees arrived in a van at the rear of the business. We entered
with the employees. Agent Kelly went directly to the stairway in the kitchen and secured the
unlabeled pesticide. Mrs. Cain and I asked the personnel entering the business where we could
locate the Manager. We were directed to the front of the store where we located an Asian male
who verbally identified himself as Jeremy Zhao, the Manager of Hibachi Grill. Mrs. Cain
identified herself and then introduced me. I identified myself to Jeremy Zhao with OISC
credentials and then stated the purpose of my visit. I told Mr. Zhao I would need all of the
unlabeled pesticide which he had and I would need to take swabs, photographs and statements.
Mr. Zhao indicated he wished to cooperate in every way he could in order to demonstrate his
restaurant was not a human health hazard. Mr. Zhao said he had used up all the remaining
unlabeled pesticide. I told Mr. Zhao he was making a false statement and asked him to
accompany me back to his storage area above the kitchen. We walked to the storage area and at
the top of the stairs to the left was a small cardboard box with UPS labels on it which contained
seven bottles identical in size and label to the one which was turned over to us by Brad Harvey
of Arrow Pest control. The box of unregistered pesticide was photographed (see fig. 5-7) and
then collected as evidence. I told Jeremy Zhao that it was crucial he be honest with me.
Fig. 5
Fig.6
Fig. 7
14. I took a digitally recorded statement from Jeremy Zhao. In the statement Mr. Zhao indicated he
had been employed as the Manager of Hibachi Grill in Anderson for approximately the past
three months. Mr. Zhao said he did remember speaking to Brad Harvey of Arrow Pest Control
and he also remembered giving Brad a sample of what he described as a product that “gets rid of
bugs and flies” which the owner of the Hibachi Grill, a Zhen Lin Chen, allegedly purchased
from a friend. Mr. Zhao stated he did not know the name of the man who sold the unlabeled and
unregistered pesticide to Mr. Chen. Mr. Zhao could not provide a phone number or address for
the owner, Mr. Chen. Mr. Zhao remembered telling Mr. Harvey the solution was “mixed with
water and then spread it”. Mr. Zhao said it was sprayed with a small sprayer like a “Windex”
sprayer. I asked Mr. Zhao who made the pesticide spray application and he said it was restaurant
staff members. I asked for names and Mr. Zhao told me he could look it up but he did not know
all the names of the staff. I asked Mr. Zhao if he knew where his staff sprayed the unlabeled
unregistered pesticide and he said the product was only sprayed outside by the dumpster area. I
asked to speak to employees who may have seen a pesticide spray application being made. Mr.
Zhao followed me to the kitchen where he spoke with two male cooks, one female server and
another male who kept coming in and out of the kitchen from the serving area. I asked Mr.
Zhao to ask each person if they saw any other employee making a pesticide spray application.
Page 4 of 9
Mr. Zhao was very animated when he asked each person using his hands and arms to point
toward the back of the business. Ping Wan was present during the questioning of the employees
and told me Mr. Zhao was asking the employees if they remembered seeing other employees
spraying pesticide “out back by the dumpster”. I had each employee write their name on a piece
of paper which I provided. I also asked for an address and phone number for each but Mr. Zhao
told me none of the personnel had a phone and he wanted me to list only the business address
for them. The names are:
•
Chen Biqiu
Asian Male
Cook
•
Chew V Tuwn
Asian Male
Cook
•
Lim Un Huia
Asian Female
Server/Waitress
•
Ye Xing Zheen
Asian Male
General duties
15. The following chart lists the swab samples and analysis that were taken at the Hibachi Grill:
Laboratory sample #
2013-1008
2013-1009
2013-1010
2013-1011
2013-1012
2013-1013
2013-1014
2013-1015
2013-1016
2013-1017
2013-1018
2013-1019
2013-1020
2013-1021
2013-1022
Investigator sample # and
description.
TB-1 Trip Blank taken at the
base office
FS-1A Free swab of the kitchen
base area SE corner
FS-1B* Free swab of the kitchen
base area SE corner
south wall base
south wall base
bathroom base under sink
bathroom base under sink
east storage room base by exit
door.
east storage room base by exit
door
base by swinging door
base by swinging door
FS-6A Free swab of the base at
west end of the sushi bar
FS-6B* Free swab of the base at
the west end of the sushi bar
FS-7A Free swab of the base
area by ent. door foyer
FS-7B* Free swab of the base
area by ent. door foyer
Page 5 of 9
Active ingredient Laboratory analysis
result. 10-09-2013
Cypermethrin
BDL
Cypermethrin
Positive-42.9 UG/S
Cypermethrin
Positive-1.3 UG/S
Cypermethrin
Positive-0.29 UG/S
Cypermethrin
Positive-0.57 UG/S
Cypermethrin
Positive-74.8 UG/S
Cypermethrin
Positive-6.5 UG/S
Cypermethrin
Positive-222.0
UG/S
2013-1023
FS-8A Free swab of men’s room Cypermethrin
base under sink
2013-1024
FS-8B* Free swab of the men’s
room base under sink
2013-1025
FS-9A Free swab of the
Cypermethrin
women’s room base under sink
2013-1026
FS-9B* Free swab of the
women’s room base under sink
BDL=Below Detection Levels. UG/S=Micrograms/Swab
The * noted after the swab designation denotes a duplicate swab.
Positive-0.46 UG/S
Positive-0.15 UG/S
16. On October 9, 2013, at 11:18am, I received an e-mail from the OISC Residue Laboratory
indicating all of the swabs which were taken at Hibachi Grill in Anderson were positive for
cypermethrin. To quote one line of the e-mail: “Some of the swabs are so hot that it would
require some 1000-fold dilution to make it in range of the mass spec detection.” I placed a
phone call to Stephanie Cain of the Madison County Health Department and let her know the
labs results for the swabs taken were positive for the active ingredient “cypermethrin”.
17. On Thursday October 10, 2013, I received an e-mail from David Scott, the OISC Pesticide
Administrator. Mr. Scott contacted Syngenta Corporation, a major cypermethrin product
manufacturer. A company representative was able to identify a clean-up procedure considered
in this matter to be a prudent response. The procedure is outlined in section 6 of the Material
Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the closest Syngenta cypermethrin product. I called Stephanie
Cain of the Madison County Health Department and passed that information on to her.
18. On Thursday October 10, 2013, I went back to Hibachi Grill and met with the Manager,
Jeremy Zhao. I told Jeremy all the swabs which I took came back positive for the active
ingredient cypermethrin in the Chinese pesticide. Mr. Zhao told me he did not know how it was
possible and added he had no knowledge of anyone spraying the product inside the Hibachi
Grill restaurant. I asked Mr. Zhao for the owner’s contact information and he told me I was not
going to get that from him. I told Mr. Zhao I needed to speak to the owner on the phone or in
person. Mr. Zhao placed a phone call to Mr. Zhen Lin Chen and left a voicemail for him to call
at once. I waited for half an hour and the only call that came to Mr. Zhao was from Mr. Chen’s
secretary. Mr. Chen’s secretary told Mr. Zhao she would pass the message onto Mr. Chen. Mr.
Zhao told me he was leaving for the day and added he had my cell phone number and when
Mr. Chen called, he would give it to him. I received a call approximately one half hour later
from Joe Brewster. Mr. Brewster told me he was with the Law Office of Carl Braddock in
Anderson and they represented the owner and management of the Hibachi Grill. Mr. Brewster
told me he had spoken to Dr. George Saxton of OISC and was referred to me. I asked Mr.
Brewster if he could arrange a meeting with the owner of the Hibachi Grill and added it would
be fine if they wanted that meeting in their office. Mr. Brewster told me he would call back
with a time and day that worked for everyone. I received a call back later in the same day and
the meeting was set for Monday October 14, 2013, at 9:00, at The Law Office of Carl
Braddock 1106 Meridian in Anderson Indiana.
19. On Monday October 14, 2013, I went to The Law Office of Carl Braddock along with Dr.
George Saxton, the Compliance Officer for OISC. In attendance was Mr. Carl Braddock,
Attorney, Cody P. Cogswell, Independent Attorney of Counsel, Jeremy Zhao, Manager of the
Hibachi Grill in Anderson Indiana and Zhen Lin Chen, Owner of The Hibachi Grill in
Page 6 of 9
Anderson Indiana. Zhen Lin Chen indicated through Jeremy Zhao he did not speak English
and wanted Mr. Zhao to translate for him. I pointed out to Mr. Zhao the fact he placed a
telephone call to Zhen Lin Chen in my presence on Thursday 10-10-13 and did leave a
voicemail for Zhen Lin Chen in English. Mr. Zhao said Zhen Lin Chen’s English was not good
and he asked Mr. Zhao to translate for him. I asked for Zhen Lin Chen’s personal contact
information. I was given a telephone number but Mr. Chen would only list the Hibachi Grill
address as Mr. Zhao’s address. I asked Mr. Zhao why I was not getting an address and Mr.
Zhao said Mr. Chen did not have a real address and added he just stays with different people as
he travels about. I asked the following questions of Mr. Chen.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Question.
What are the names and addresses of the other businesses you own?
Answer.
Mr. Chen does not own any other businesses.
Question.
Where did you get the insecticide that was applied at the Hibachi Grill in
Anderson Indiana?
Answer.
It was recommended by a friend and then purchased in New York City.
Question.
Who was the friend that recommended it and what is that friend’s phone
number?
Answer.
Chen Zhen (718) 290-4767.
Question.
Who supplied the pesticide to you?
Answer.
We called a phone number and they sent it to us.
Question.
What is the number you called to order the pesticide?
Answer.
Don’t have it, can get it and forward it. (Supplied later the same day (646)
379-8781).
Question.
How much more of the pesticide do you have?
Answer.
None, you have it all.
Question.
What are the names and contact information of the persons that applied the
pesticide inside the Hibachi Grill in Anderson Indiana?
Answer.
Chen Bin Zhen (917) 859-0388.
20. I discussed the correspondence between OISC and Syngenta regarding the prudent clean-up
steps they would take in this case. Attorney’s Carl Braddock and Cody Cogswell said they
would recommend to their client they hire a professional cleaning service. I asked to be
contacted when the clean-up was complete so I could take follow up swabs. Mr. Cogswell said
he would contact me via e-mail.
21.
On October 28, 2013, I received the quantitative results back from the OISC Residue
Laboratory. The positive results were reported out in micrograms/swab (UG/S). The final
results were posted in the report chart after the word “positive”.
22. On Friday November 1, 2013, I made telephone contact with Eric Terrell, the owner of Service
Master in Anderson Indiana. Mr. Terrell advised me he had been hired for the clean-up at the
Hibachi Restaurant in Anderson Indiana. I asked Mr. Terrell if he had received the MSDS sheet
for “Demon Max” which was highlighted under clean-up of “spills”. Mr. Terrell told me he had
not received any information but had in fact done the clean-up as he was directed to by Mr.
Jeremy Zhao. When Mr. Terrell described how and where he had cleaned, it was in-complete. I
agreed to meet Mr. Terrell at the Hibachi Grill on Monday November 4, 2013, at 11:00am. On
Monday November 4, 2013, I met Mr. Terrell at the Hibachi Grill and walked through the
restaurant indicating where all the swabs were taken which came back positive with the
“cypermethrin” product. Mr. Terrell took note of the places which needed cleaning. I provided
Page 7 of 9
the MSDS sheet for Demon Max, the closest product to the unknown “cypermethrin” product
and had Mr. Terrell review the clean-up procedure for “spills”. Mr. Terrell told me he would
notify me by e-mail when the clean-up was complete.
23. On Thursday November 7, 2013, I received an e-mail from Eric Terrell of Service Master. Mr.
Terrell enclosed two invoices indicating the clean-up at the Hibachi Grill had been completed.
The follow-up swabs will be conducted on Tuesday November 12, 2013.
24. On Tuesday November 12, 2013, I went back to the Hibachi Grill and took four follow-up
swab samples. The swab samples were tagged and turned in to the OISC Residue Laboratory
for analysis. The OISC Residue Laboratory reported the final results for the four follow up
swabs on November 27, 2013. The chart that follows shows the analysis results.
Laboratory
sample#
2014-0047
2014-0048
2014-0049
2014-0050
2014-0051
Investigator sample# and
description.
TB-1 Trip Blank for 11-12-13
FU-1 Follow up free swab of inside
rear ent. /exit, SE corner base area.
FU-2 Follow up free swab of kitchen
base area by swinging door.
FU-3 Follow up free swab of base
area at west end of sushi bar.
FU-4 Follow up free swab of base
area in Foyer area by front door.
Active Ingredient
Cypermethrin
Cypermethrin
Analysis
result(s)
BDL
12.0 UG/S
Cypermethrin
5.03 UG/S
Cypermethrin
14.9 UG/S
Cypermethrin
24.7 UG/S
BDL=Below Detection Levels. UG/S=Micrograms/Swab.
25. I notified the Manager of the Hibachi Grill, Jeremy Zhao of the follow up swab results. Mr.
Zhao notified the ServiceMaster of Anderson and coordinated a second clean up. I received a
call from Eric Terrell the owner of the Anderson Indiana ServiceMaster indicating the clean-up
would be completed on Thursday November 28, 2013. On Friday December 6, 2013, I went
back to the Hibachi Grill and completed the second round of four follow-up swabs. The swabs
were tagged and turned in to the OISC Residue Laboratory for analysis. On January 23, 2014, I
received the final results from the swabs taken on December 6th, 2013. The results indicated the
clean-up effort continues to show progress.
Laboratory
sample#
2014-0119
2014-0120
2014-0121
2014-0122
2014-0123
Investigator sample# and description
Active Ingredient
TB-1 Trip blank for 12-06-13
FU-1A Follow up free swab of
interior rear entrance/exit of kitchen
at SE corner base area
FU-2A Follow up free swab of base
area in kitchen by swinging door
FU-3A Follow up free swab of base
area at the west end of the sushi bar
FU-4A Follow up free swab of the
base area in the front foyer at the
door
Cypermethrin
Cypermethrin
Analysis
result
BDL
4.7 UG/S
Cypermethrin
1.8 UG/S
Cypermethrin
3.0 UG/S
Cypermethrin
10.6 UG/S
BDL=Below Detection Levels. UG/S=Micrograms/Swab.
Page 8 of 9
26. In this case, Mr. Chen Zhen the owner of the Hibachi Grill restaurant at 5567 Scatterfield Rd. in
Anderson Indiana, in a statement to Agents Brian Baker and Dr. George Saxton of OISC
admitted he did knowingly purchase an unregistered pesticide for use in his restaurant. The
unregistered pesticide product which Mr. Zhen purchased was seized during an inspection of
the business and subsequently tested by the OISC formulation Laboratory. The unregistered
pesticide product was found to contain the active ingredient “cypermethrin”. The swabs which
were taken from various locations inside the Hibachi Grill and then examined by the OISC
Residue Laboratory verified the use of the unregistered pesticide with the active ingredient
“cypermethrin” on the interior of the Hibachi Grill restaurant.
Brian P. Baker
Disposition: Jeremy Zhao and Hibachi Grill were cited for violation of section 65(16) of the
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for knowingly purchasing or using a pesticide product
that was not registered under IC 15-16-4. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for
this violation. Consideration was given to the fact Mr. Zhao attempted to deceive and did not fully
cooperate with the investigators during this investigation.
In addition, this information was forwarded to US EPA Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for
their review.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Cc:
Stephanie Cain
Madison County Health Department
206 E. 9th Street
Page 9 of 9
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0127
Complainant:
Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC)
175 S University Street
800-893-6637
Dealer:
ECom Global LLC
11906 Royal Tee Circle
Cape Coral, FL 33991
Registrant:
Stephen C. Perry, President
Conseal International, Inc.
90 Kerry Place, Suite 2
Norwood, MA 02062
1. On October 3, 2013, I performed a virtual marketplace inspection of the following site:
http://www.ecomsaferway.com/ratx.html. It was suspected that Rat-X was potentially a
state and federally unregistered pesticide.
2. I then ordered the Rat-X
Fig 2: Order summary
3. The order arrived at the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) via US Priority Mail. I
attached a sample collection number of 2013-0918 to the Rat-X and submitted it to the OISC
Formulation Lab on October 8, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
4. According to the Rat-X canister, the active ingredient was corn gluten meal and the inert
ingredients were corn cobs, maltodextrin, sorbitol, wheat flour, and wheat germ oil.
5. A check of the OISC database indicated the Rat-X was not a state registered pesticide.
6. This product is considered misbranded because it bears a false and misleading ingredient
statement. The active ingredient in this product is corn cobs, not corn gluten meal.
7. This product lacks federal registration. Since corn cobs are misrepresented as an inert/other
ingredient and are actually the active ingredient; and since corn cobs are not an acceptable
active ingredient for formulating minimum risk pesticides, this product must be registered
with USEPA as a pesticide.
Elizabeth C. Carter
Disposition: Conseal International Inc. was cited for violation of section 57(5) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for producing a pesticide product that is misbranded for having a
false and misleading active ingredient statement. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was
Conseal International Inc. was cited for violation of section 57(9) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for producing a pesticide that violates the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for producing a pesticide product that fails to qualify for the FIFRA
25(b) exemption and therefore, should be registered as a pesticide. A civil penalty in the amount
of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
A total of $500.00 in civil penalties was assessed for this investigation.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0132
Complainant:
800-893-6637
Respondent:
Texon Athletic
a/k/a Texon II, Inc.
Dustin Regenold
1718 Pleasant Street
Noblesville, IN 46060
317-472-8885
Director of Warehouse Operations
1. On June 12, 2013, at the request of US EPA Region Five, Joe Becovitz of the Office of Indiana State
Chemist (OISC) performed a pesticide producer establishment inspection at Coeus Technology Inc,
3619 West 73rd Street, Anderson, Indiana 46011 (see case #20131034). As a result of this inspection,
Coeus Technology was issued a state Stop Sale Use or Removal Order (SSURO), dated June 14, 2013,
and a federal SSURO dated August 15, 2013, for producing unregistered pesticides. The inspection at
Coeus also revealed that other companies in Indiana appeared to be distributing the unregistered Coeus
pesticide products. OISC investigators were assigned follow-up inspections at each of these possible
Indiana distributors.
2. On October 16, 2013, Agent Bob Brewer and I met with Dustin Regenold, Director of Warehouse
Operations for Texon. Texon is a distributor of Athletic Towels. In addition, Texon sells and distributes
Monofoil products produced by Coeus Technology.
3. Mr. Regenold stated he had several Monofoil products in the warehouse that included;
A. One (1) fifty-five gallon drum of Monofoil. See figure 1-2.
B. Thirty eight (38) 1 gallon jugs Monofoil Clean Redefined. See figure 3.
C. Sixty nine (69) containers of Monofoil Premium Cleaning Pads. See figure 3.
D. Three (3) 32 ounce containers of Monofoil Clean Redefined. See figure 3.
E. One (1) 8 ounce container of Monofoil antimicrobial treatment for laundry and uniforms. See figure
3.
F. Application equipment used to apply Monofoil. See figure 4.
Fig. 1- 55 Gallon drum
Fig. 2-Drum labeled “Turf”
Fig. 3-Various sized Monofoil
products
Page 1 of 4
Fig. 4-Application equipment
4. On October 16, 2013, I collected the following samples of the Monofoil products sold by Texon Athletic:
A. One (1) gallon of Monofoil Clean Redefined-round container. Sample # 2014-0201
B. One (1) gallon of Monofoil Clean Redefined-oval container. Sample # 2014-0202
C. One (1) 32 ounce of Monofoil Clean Redefined. Sample # 2014-0204
D. One (1) container of Monofoil Premium Cleaning Pads. Sample # 2014-0203
E. One (1) 8 ounce container of Monofoil antimicrobial treatment for laundry and uniforms. Sample #
2014-0205
F. One (1) 8 ounce sub-sample from 55 gallon drum. Sample # 2014-0206
All samples were delivered to the OISC Pesticide Formulations Laboratory for chemical analysis by
determination of quaternary nitrogen equivalent of the Monofoil silyl quaternary ammonium salt active
ingredient.
5. I collected three (3) invoices for shipments of Monofoil products to Texon Athletic from Coeus
Technology.
Invoice # Date
Description
Quantity
69
7/15/13 Monofoil 1.3% Liquid Gallon
12
1935
7/17/13
Monofoil application Services
Monofoil Liquid 1.3% 55Gal Drum-Turf Application product
1
Monofoil Antimicrobial 5 gallon Pail-Turf Application 2
Product
1982
9/12/13
Monofoil 1.3% Liquid Gallon
Turfbond Antimicrobial for Synthetic Turf. 55 Gallon
40
1
6. On October 16, 2013, Mr. Regenold stated that the 55 gallon drum with the “Turf” label is the same 55
gallon drum listed on the 9/12/13 invoice (Invoice #1982).
7. On October 16, 2013, I spoke with Wayne Kotulic Jr., Vice President of Sales for Texon Athletic, by
telephone. Mr. Kotulic stated Dave Parker from Coeus Technology makes all the applications listed on
the Invoices as “Monofoil Application Services”. However, Mr. Kotulic stated he (Kotulic) made one
application to the sideline of a turf football field.
8. On October 16, 2013, I issued a SSURO to Texon for the sale and distribution of all Coeus Technology
Monofoil products.
9. On December 6, 2013, OISC’s Formulation Laboratory reported the following results which indicate
each sample met the regulatory standard for the active ingredient guarantee.
Sample #
Sample Description
Active Ingredients
%Guarantee Results
2014-0201 Monofoil Clean Redefined 3-(Trihydroxysilyl)propl
1.3
dimethyl octadecyl ammonium
chloride
Quaternary Nitrogen Equivalent 0.0367
0.0384
2014-0202 Monofoil Clean Redefined 3-(Trihydroxysilyl)propl
1.3
chloride
Quaternary Nitrogen Equivalent 0.0367
0.0317
Page 2 of 4
2014-0203
2014-0204
2014-0205
2014-0206
Monofoil Premium
Cleaning Pads
Monofoil Clean Redefined
Monofoil antimicrobial
treatment for laundry and
uniforms
sub-sample from 55 gallon
drum of refuted Monofoil
3-(Trihydroxysilyl)propl
chloride
Quaternary Nitrogen Equivalent
chloride
chloride
chloride
N/A
0.0171
1.3
0.0367
0.7
0.0398
0.0197
1.3
0.0263
0.0367
0.0477
Paul J. Kelley
Investigator
Date: January 23, 2014
DISPOSITION:
A. On June 14, 2013, OISC issued a Stop Sale Use or Removal Order to Coeus Technology, Inc. for the
Monofoil and Ultra products because the label/labeling for those products made pesticidal claims but
were not registered with US EPA or the Office of Indiana State Chemist.
B. On July 15, 2013, Coeus Technology Inc. sold twelve (12) one gallon containers of the unregistered
pesticide product MonoFoil 1.3% to Texon Athletic in direct violation of the Stop Sale Use or
Removal Order.
C. On July 17, 2013, Coeus Technology Inc., in direct violation of the OISC Stop Sale Use or Removal
Order, sold the unregistered pesticide products:
a. One 55 gallon drum of MonoFoil Liquid 1.3% Turf Application;
b. Two, five gallon pails of MonoFoil Antimicrobial – Turf;
D. On September 12, 2013, in direct violation of the OISC Stop Sale Use or Removal Order, Coeus
Technology Inc. sold the unregistered pesticide products:
a. 40, one gallon containers of MonoFoil 1.3%;
b. One, 55 gallon drum of TurfBond Antimicrobial for Synthetic Turf.
E. On July 17, 2013, Dave Parker of Coeus Technology Inc., made a pesticide application for Texon
Athletic. Mr. Parker is not licensed to make pesticide applications for-hire.
Page 3 of 4
F. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for two (2) counts of violation of section 57(1) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for distributing two pesticide products that were not registered for sale in
Indiana. A civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed.
G. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for five (5) counts of violation of section 73(c) of the Indiana
Pesticide Registration Law for violation a Stop Sale Use or Removal order. A civil penalty in the
amount of $2,750.00 ($250.00 for the first count; $500.00 for the second count; $1,000.00 for each
additional count.
H. The total amount of civil penalty assessed to Coeus Technology Inc. is $3,250.00.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 4 of 4
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0134
Complainant:
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
765-494-1585
Respondent:
Phocatox Technologies
10681 Woodmont Lane
Fishers, IN 46037
Todd Schnitzius
1-800-901-0988 Ext. 101
1. On June 12, 2013, at the request of US EPA Region Five, Joe Becovitz of the Office of
Indiana State Chemist (OISC) performed a pesticide producer establishment inspection at
Coeus Technology, Inc., 3619 West 73rd Street, Anderson, Indiana 46011 (see case
#2013/1034). As a result of this inspection Coeus Technology was issued a state Stop Sale
Use or Removal Order (SSURO), dated June 14, 2013, and federal SSURO dated August 15,
2013, for producing unregistered pesticides. The inspection at Coeus also revealed that other
companies in Indiana appeared to be distributing the unregistered Coeus pesticide products.
OISC investigators were then assigned follow-up inspections at each of these possible
Indiana distributors.
2. On October 16, 2013, I met with Todd Schnitzius, Managing Partner of Phocatox
Technologies, at his home (location address above) and discussed Phocatox’s relationship
with Coeus. Mr. Schnitzius informed me Phocatox had an agreement with Coeus to
distribute their unregistered 1.3 % MonoFoil Antimicrobial product labeled as BioSweep
Surface Defense. Mr. Schnitzius stated Coeus sends the MonoFoil Antimicrobial product
directly to a Phocatox distribution location in Houston, Texas. The MonoFoil Antimicrobial
product is then labeled as BioSweep Surface Defense and then sent to franchise applicators
throughout the United States. Mr. Schnitzius indicated these applicators then make
commercial applications of the BioSweep Surface Defense product as an anti-microbial agent
to various types of surfaces (example given: High School gym mats). Mr. Schnitzius stated
there was only one (1) franchise applicator for Indiana, Gary Steinke. Mr. Schnitzius
contacted Mr. Steinke to see if he had any of the BioSweep Surface Defense product in stock,
but Steinke did not.
3. I informed Mr. Schnitzius the 1.3 % MonoFoil Antimicrobial product from Coeus and the
corresponding BioSweep Surface Defense products were not registered products (either state
or federal). Mr. Schnitzius was issued a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order for the BioSweep
product. Mr. Schnitzius also agreed to send me shipping records from Coeus for the
BioSweep received. In addition, Mr. Schnitzius was asked to supply application records of
the BioSweep product by Mr. Steinke. Lastly, Mr. Schnitzius was asked to provide a copy of
Page 1 of 2
the repackaging agreement between Phocatox and Coeus for the BioSweep Surface Defense
product.
4. On October 18, 2013, I received invoice / shipping information from Mr. Schnitzius. The
two (2) invoices received showed Coeus Technology had sent the MonoFoil Antimicrobial
product in unlabeled 5 gallon pails to Phocatox Technologies LLC in Houston, Texas on
February 21, 2013 and September 16, 2013. The invoices indicated that BioSweep Surface
Defense labels were to be applied to the unlabeled MonoFoil Antimicrobial pails at the
Phocatox location in Texas.
Scott M. Farris
Disposition:
A. On June 14, 2013, OISC issued a Stop Sale Use or Removal Order to Coeus Technology,
Inc. for the MonoFoil and Ultra products because the label/labeling for those products
made pesticidal claims but the products were not registered with U.S. EPA or the Office
of Indiana State Chemist.
B. On September 16, 2013, Coeus Technology Inc. sold twenty-four (24) five (5) gallon
pails of the unregistered pesticide product MonoFoil Antimicrobial in unlabeled pails to
Phocatox Technologies LLC in Houston, Texas. This sale was in violation of both the
OISC STOP SALE, USE OR REMOVAL ORDER issued to Coeus Technology on June
14, 2013 and the U.S. EPA STOP SALE, USE OR REMOVAL ORDER issued to Coeus
Technology on August 15, 2013.
C. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for violation of section 57(1) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for distributing a pesticide product that was not registered for sale in
Indiana. The civil penalty for this violation is per product per year and was already
assessed in case number 2014/0132
D. Coeus Technology Inc. was cited for violation of section 73(c) of the Indiana Pesticide
Registration Law for violation a Stop Sale Use or Removal order. A civil penalty in the
amount of $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact
this is their second violation of similar nature. See case number 2014/0132.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0137
Complainant:
Adam Seraiah
9901 Cooks Mill Road
Georgetown, Indiana 47122
812-786-0622
Respondent:
Nolan Brightman
Townsend Tree Service
P.O. Box 128,
Parker City, Indiana 47368
765-468-1410
Licensed Applicator
Licensed Business
1. On or about October 5, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) was informed
about a sample sent to the Purdue Plant and Pest Diagnostic Laboratory (PPPDL) that
appeared to exhibit symptoms of exposure to a cancelled lawn herbicide, Imprelis. The
homeowner that sent the sample, Adam Seraiah, believed the symptoms were caused by a
right-of-way (ROW) application.
2. On October 11, 2013, I met with Mr. Seraiah at his residence. Mr. Seraiah showed me the
ROW that abutted his property and the white pines that he believed were injured as a result
of an herbicide application that was made to the ROW. I observed the following:
• The ROW runs along the west side of the Seraiah property
• Utility poles on the ROW had Harrison County REMC ID tags affixed to them (See
Figure 1)
• White pines on the Seraiah property adjacent to the ROW had twisted and yellowed
needles along with new growth that was clubbed. The pine trees appeared to be
dying. (See Figures 2 and 3).
• The trunks of the injured white pines were approximately 30 feet from the center of
the adjacent ROW
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
I photographed the ROW, the injured pines and the ID tag on one of the utility poles. I took
soil samples from the ROW and vegetation samples from the injured pines for analysis by the
OISC residue laboratory.
Page 1 of 2
3. I contacted John Warner of Harrison County REMC and explained the complaint to him.
Mr. Warner stated that Harrison County REMC hires Townsend Tree Service to maintain
their right-of-ways. He identified his Townsend contact as Eric Melton. He also stated that
the ROW width for the line that abuts the Seraiah property is 30 feet total or 15 feet from the
center. A Pesticide Investigation Inquiry was sent to Eric Melton on October 14, 2013.
4. According to information supplied by Eric Melton of Townsend Tree Service, Garlon 3a
(EPA Reg. #62719-37) and Streamline (EPA Reg. #352-847) were applied along the ROW
by Nolan Brightman on August 1, 2012. It should be noted that Streamline herbicide
contains aminocyclopyrachlor which was also the active ingredient in Imprelis herbicide.
Imprelis herbicide was known to cause injury to white pine similar to those observed on the
Seraiah white pines.
5. The OISC residue laboratory found 10.7 parts per billion of aminocylopyrachlor in the soil
sample taken from the ROW and 6.7 parts per billion of aminocyclopyrachlor in the pine
sample.
6. The Streamline label states, “IMPORTANT RESTRICTIONS-Do not apply this product in
areas where the roots of desirable trees and/or shrubs may extend unless injury or loss can be
tolerated. IMPORTANT PRECAUTIONS-certain species may, in particular, be sensitive
to low levels of Streamline including but not limited to conifers (such as Douglas fir, Norway
spruce, ponderosa pine and white pine), deciduous trees (such as aspen, Chinese tallow,
cottonwood, honey locust, magnolia, poplar species, redbud, silver maple and willow
species), and ornamental shrubs (such as arborvitae, burning bush, crape myrtle, forsythia,
hydrangea, ice plant, magnolia, purple plum and yew).”
Joseph D. Becovitz
Disposition: Nolan Brightman was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law for failure to follow label language regarding application near
desirable trees. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.
Consideration was given to the fact environmental damage occurred.
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
CASE SUMMARY
Case #2014/0170
Complainant:
Ms. Celeste Ragland
4041 E. Oldfield
Leesburg, Indiana 46538
574-527-0027
Respondent:
Jim Edwards
Five Star Landscaping and
Property Management
3808 N. 100 E.
Warsaw, Indiana 46582
574-267-7394
Unlicensed Business
1. On November 4, 2013, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a complaint
regarding an alleged evergreen damage from a pesticide application
2. On November 12, 2013, agent Becovitz and I met with the complainant. I issued a Notice of
Inspection (NOI) to Ms. Celeste Ragland. Also present was Jim Hoover of Hoover Estate
Management Group located at 10991 N. Douglas Dr. East in Syracuse, Indiana (574-518-0790.
Mr. Hoover recently did some lawn care work for the complainant. He told her one of the
evergreen trees on her property appeared as though it may have been affected by a herbicide
known as “Imprelis”. He told her to contact OISC to file a complaint. Ms. Ragland told us the
last time she had a lawn care application was the summer of 2011 by a company known as Five
Star Landscaping. She said shortly after their application, she noticed the tree was dying. She told
us she contacted Jim Edwards of Five Star Landscaping. She said he looked at the tree. She
further said he told her the tree was dying from the drought. It wasn’t until Mr. Hoover told her
the damaged appeared to be from a possible application of Imprelis that she contacted OISC.
3. Agent Becovitz and I checked the affected evergreen tree (white pine). The top of the tree was
twisted and curled. Much of the needles had turned brown or had fallen off.(See photos below)
White Pine
Close up top of White Pine
4. We obtained needle and branch samples from the affected white pine for submission to the
Purdue Plant and Pest Diagnostic Lab (PPDL) for analysis.
5. The following samples were placed in a Mylar bag for submission to the OISC Residue Lab for
analysis: PS-1 white pine needles and branches
Page 1 of 2
6. I made contact with Jason Timmberman of Five Star Landscaping and Property Management. At
first he denied his company made any type applications to the complainant’s property. When I
told him she had copies of invoices from his company, he then stated his company made two
fertilizer applications and one application of Triplet Selective Herbicide (EPA #228-264; active
ingredient: dicamba, 2, 4-D and mecaprop) in 2011. When I told him about the damage to the
complainant’s white pine tree appeared to be from Imprelis, he admitted his father-in-law
purchased Imprelis (EPA #352-793; active ingredient: aminocyclopyrachlor) in 2011 but he
didn’t apply it.
7. I made contact with Tim Edwards of Five Star Landscaping. Mr. Edwards admitted to making a
pesticide application to the complainant’s property in the summer of 2011. He also admitted he
was not a licensed applicator with OISC nor was his business at the time of the application.
When I told him we suspected Imprelis had been used, he told me he never used Imprelis. He
said he purchased it for his own property, but not for his business. He denied he made pesticide
applications to any other properties.
8. I received the following information from Purdue PPDL:”A small amount of pine needle scale
was found on the sample but there were no other significant insects or disease problems noted.
The main problem appears to be herbicide injury. The tip necrosis, terminal gall-like distortion
and twisting of foliage found on this sample are consistent with injury that we have seen to be
associated with uptake of Imprelis, a synthetic auxin (growth regulator type) herbicide.”
9. I received the following results from the OISC Residue Lab:
Sample Number
20140057/PS-1
Sample Description
Test
pine needles and branches
Aminocyclopyrachlor
PPB= parts per billion
Result
24.2 PPB
10. I contacted Jill Davis of the OISC licensing section. She advised me Jim Edwards and Five Star
Landscaping and Property Management obtained their category 3B applicator license and
business license April 25, 2012. Neither was properly licensed when the pesticide application
was made in 2011.
Kevin W. Gibson
Disposition: Five Star Landscaping and Property Management was cited for violation 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 $250.00 was assessed
for this violation.
Effective September 15, 2011, the Indiana registration for Imprelis Herbicide, EPA Reg. #352-793,
was cancelled because it was determined by OISC that the product is “misbranded” (it bears label
directions that are inadequate to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to non-target vegetation).
George N. Saxton
Compliance Officer
Page 2 of 2
PROTECTION OF POLLINATORS
APPLICATION RESTRICTIONS
PRODUCT BECAUSE OF RISK TO BEES AND OTHER INSECT POLLINATORS.
EXIST FOR THIS
FOLLOW
APPLICATION RESTRICTIONS FOUND IN THE DIRECTIONS FOR USE TO PROTECT
POLLINATORS.
Look for the bee hazard icon
in the Directions for Use for each
application site for specific use restrictions and instructions to protect bees and
other insect pollinators.
This product can kill bees and other insect pollinators.
Bees and other insect pollinators will forage on plants when they flower, shed pollen, or
produce nectar.
Bees and other insect pollinators can be exposed to this pesticide from:
o Direct contact during foliar applications, or contact with residues on plant surfaces after
foliar applications
o Ingestion of residues in nectar and pollen when the pesticide is applied as a seed treatment,
soil, tree injection, as well as foliar applications.
When Using This Product Take Steps To:
o Minimize exposure of this product to bees and other insect pollinators when they are
foraging on pollinator attractive plants around the application site.
o Minimize drift of this product on to beehives or to off-site pollinator attractive habitat. Drift
of this product onto beehives or off-site to pollinator attractive habitat can result in bee kills.
Information on protecting bees and other insect pollinators may be found at the Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship website at:
http://pesticidestewardship.org/PollinatorProtection/Pages/default.aspx.
Pesticide incidents (for example, bee kills) should immediately be reported to the state/tribal lead agency. For
contact information for your state, go to: www.aapco.org/officials.html. Pesticide incidents should also be
reported to the National Pesticide Information Center at: www.npic.orst.edu or directly to EPA at:
beekill@epa.gov
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
1. FOR CROPS UNDER CONTRACTED POLLINATION SERVICES
Do not apply this product while bees are foraging. Do not apply this
product until flowering is complete and all petals have fallen unless the
following condition has been met.
If an application must be made when managed bees are at the
treatment site, the beekeeper providing the pollination services must
be notified no less than 48-hours prior to the time of the planned
application so that the bees can be removed, covered or otherwise
protected prior to spraying.
2. FOR FOOD CROPS AND COMMERCIALLY GROWN ORNAMENTALS NOT
UNDER CONTRACT FOR POLLINATION SERVICES BUT ARE ATTRACTIVE TO
POLLINATORS
Do not apply this product while bees are foraging. Do not apply this
product until flowering is complete and all petals have fallen unless one of
the following conditions is met:
•
The application is made to the target site after sunset
•
The application is made to the target site when temperatures are
below 55˚F
•
The application is made in accordance with a government-initiated
public health response
•
The application is made in accordance with an active stateadministered apiary registry program where beekeepers are notified
no less than 48-hours prior to the time of the planned application so
that the bees can be removed, covered or otherwise protected prior
to spraying
•
The application is made due to an imminent threat of significant crop
loss, and a documented determination consistent with an IPM plan or
predetermined economic threshold is met. Every effort should be
made to notify beekeepers no less than 48-hours prior to the time of
the planned application so that the bees can be removed, covered or
otherwise protected prior to spraying.
3. Non-Agricultural Products:
Do not apply [insert name of product] while bees are foraging. Do not
apply [insert name of product] to plants that are flowering. Only apply after
all flower petals have fallen off.
Is Runoff Language on
Pesticide Labels Adequate ?
Indiana Pesticide Review Board
May 27, 2014
How Can Pesticides Move Off Target?




Drift…movement of spray particles with the
wind at the time of application.
Volatilization…vapor drift…evaporation (into
a gas) after application carried by air movement.
Leaching…movement with water down
through the soil profile.
Runoff…movement with water over the land
surface…carried in water or in soil residues.
The amount of runoff usually
depends on:





Slope of the land
Soil moisture content
Presence of vegetation or plant residues
Amount & timing of irrigation or precipitation
Pesticide characteristics…how easily a pesticide
dissolves in water or how strongly it absorbs to
soil particles
Pesticide runoff is legal or illegal
depending on label language

Some labels alert the user to the possibility or
likelihood of runoff ...ADVISORY

Some labels place restrictions on
runoff…ENFORCEABLE

Some labels require runoff prevention measures
by applicators…ENFORCEABLE
OISC runoff investigations




2002 through 2012
100 investigations involved allegations of runoff
to some degree
Average: 10 per year (range: 7-11 per year)
Average: 4.3 violations per year
OISC runoff investigations









100 investigations
Some fish kills & some plant damage
Some overlap with drift
Cat. 1….17
Cat. 3…19
Cat. 5…4
Cat. 6…36
Cat. 11…6
Other…18…private applicators, neighbors, unknown
Roundup Pro

Glyphosate

No mention of runoff on label
Extreme

Corn and soybean herbicide

Imazethapyr + glyphosate

No runoff language, only drift
Authority Assist




Ag crops
Sulfentrazone + Imazethapyr
Under some conditions AUTHORITY may have a high
potential for runoff into surface water for several
months post-application.
Do not apply to frozen soils or existing snow cover to
prevent AUTHORITY runoff from rain or snowmelt
that may occur following application.
Tordon 101 Mixture

Picloram + 2,4-D

“Drift and runoff may be hazardous to aquatic
organisms in water adjacent to treated areas.”

“Under some conditions, picloram may also
have a high potential for runoff into surface
water (primarily via dissolution in runoff water).
These include poorly draining or wet soils…”
Tordon 101 Mixture

“Do not make application when circumstances
favor movement from treatment site.”

Unconstitutionally vague or zero tolerance ?
Trooper 22K

Picloram
Do not allow run-off or spray to contaminate
wells, irrigation ditches or any body of water used
for irrigation or domestic purposes.

Do not make application when circumstances
favor movement from treatment site.

Krovar



Bromacil + diuron
Do not treat frozen or saturated soils, or soils that are
non-receptive to percolation.
Do not apply to hard or impervious soils, water
saturated soils or to any surface that does not allow the
herbicide to be moved into the soil horizon with
moisture. Unusually heavy rainfall shortly after
application may move the product off-target to the
lowest surrounding point and cause plant injury or
death.
Oust Extra

Sulfometuron methyl + Metsulfuron methyl

If prevailing local conditions may be expected to
result in off-site movement and cause damage to
neighboring desirable vegetation or agricultural
crops, do not apply OUST® EXTRA.
Sahara DG

Imazapyr + diuron

DO NOT drain or flush equipment on or near
desirable trees or other plants, or on areas where
their roots may extend, or in locations where the
chemical may be washed or moved into contact
with their roots.
Sahara DG


Injury or loss of desirable trees or other plants
may result if Sahara DG is applied on or near
desirable trees or other plants, on areas where
their roots extend, or in locations where the
treated soil may be washed or moved into
contact with their roots.
Exposure to Sahara DG may injure or kill most
crops.
Pathfinder II

Triclopyr

“Do not apply on snow or frozen ground.”

“Do not apply where runoff or irrigation water
may flow onto agricultural land as injury to
crops may result.”
Vista

Fluroxypyr

“This product should be used strictly in
accordance with the runoff and drift precautions
on this label in order to minimize off-site
exposure and potential effects on aquatic
organisms and non-target plants.’
Vista

“Under certain conditions, this product may
have a potential to run-off to surface water or
adjacent land. Use of vegetation filter strips or
treatment setbacks is recommended along rivers,
creeks, streams, wetlands, etc or on the downhill
side of treated areas where runoff could occur to
minimize water runoff.”
Escort XP

Metsulfuron methyl

“Nontarget plants may be adversely effected
from drift and runoff.’
Escort XP

PREPARING FOR USE-Site Specific Considerations

“ A careful evaluation of the potential for off-site
movement from the intended application site, including
movement of treated soil by wind or water erosion,
must be made prior to using Escort XP. … If
prevailing local conditions may be expected to result in
off-site movement and cause damage to neighboring
desirable vegetation or agricultural crops, do not apply
Escort XP.”
Landmark XP

Sulfometuron methyl + Chlorsulfuron

“Exposure to LANDMARK XP can injure or
kill plants. Damage to susceptible plants can
occur when soil particles are blown or washed
off target onto cropland.”
Landmark XP


“Injury to crops may result if treated soil is washed,
blown, or moved onto land used to produce crops.
Exposure to LANDMARK XP may injure or kill most
crops. Injury may be more severe when the crops are
irrigated. ”
“Do not apply LANDMARK XP when these
conditions are identified and powdery, dry soil or light
or sandy soil are known to be prevalent in the area to
be treated.”
Streamline, Viewpoint, Perspective

Aminocyclopyrachlor +…

“Do not apply this product if site-specific
characteristics and conditions exist that could
contribute to movement and unintended root
zone exposure to desirable trees or vegetation
unless injury or loss can be tolerated.”
Streamline, Viewpoint, Perspective


“Do not make applications when circumstances
favor movement from treatment site.”
“During periods of intense rainfall, applications
made to roadsides or other non-crop areas, to
soils saturated with water, or soils through
which rainfall will not readily penetrate may
result in runoff and movement of PRODUCT.
Do not apply PRODUCT when these conditions
exist.”
In Summary:

Enforceable runoff language is now being added to
many (most?) ROW herbicide labels.

Many ag labels have no enforceable protections.

Runoff language on labels can vary (nothing, advisory,
enforceable sometimes, enforceable always) depending
on the product manufacturer.
Questions ?
Dave Scott
scottde@purdue.edu
(765) 494-1593
Take I-65
5 North US 52 (last Lebanon exit)
w into Lafaayette.
Take US 52 all the way
P
in Lafaayette
US 52 is Sagamore Pkwy
nsion office will be on your
y
left just past the lighht at US 52/S
Sagamore Pkkwy &
The exten
Creasy Lane/Beck
L
Laane (Ivy Tecch will be on
n your right aat that light))

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist

Transcription

Similar documents

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist

Delaware and Miami Indian Presentation

Financial Strength - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

David Bowden Joshua Conyers

1991 TAP Annual Report - Technical Assistance Program

Walker Profile - City of Edmonton

Ten things you need to know before you buy a car

online event guide cover.pub

WBE Certified - Perna Design

2011 Annual Report - Ronald McDonald House of Indiana

Woody ornamentals - The Learning Store