case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist - Purdue University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Complainant: Katie Manning 3513 Innsdale Drive New Castle, IN 47362 765-686-1203 765-465-3201 CASE SUMMARY Case#2012/0753 Applicator: Ross Lawn & Landscape Aaron Stigall Jason Enix 3809 S. TSC Road New Castle, IN 47362 765-529-8333 Certified Applicator Unlicensed 1. On May 4, 2012, Katie Manning contacted the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report that Ross Lawn and Landscape was only supposed to spray her landscape beds and instead sprayed her entire yard. According to Ms. Manning, her yard was now dying. 2. On May 7, 2012, Agent George Saxton and I met with Ms. Manning at her property. Ms. Manning stated that Ross Lawn & Landscape sprayed her entire yard on April 11, 2012. She reiterated that she had only wanted the landscape beds sprayed and not the entire yard. She stated that she knew the yard had been sprayed because of the lawn care flag on the corner of her property. 3. Upon observing the yard, I noticed large areas of brown, dying turf. Some parts of the turf were green, but the majority of the turf appeared brown and stressed. It was also very evident where the application had been made on the property. Please see the figures below. Figure 1: Front yard Figure 2: Front yard & side yard Figure 3: Side yard Figure 4: Back yard Figure 5: Up close back yard Fig 6: Sprayer pattern Page 1 of 2
4. I then collected a composite soil and grass sample from the Manning yard and later submitted it to the OISC Residue lab for analysis. 5. Later that day, Agent George Saxton and I met with Aaron Stigall, the certified applicator at Ross Lawn and Landscaping. Mr. Stigall stated he had approximately 16 to 18 properties that were having similar issues. He said that all the applications at these affected properties had been made by a former employee, Jason Enix. He was uncertain what caused the problem, but acknowledged that it was most likely pesticide related. 6. Mr. Stigall also acknowledged that Mr. Enix was not a licensed pesticide applicator, and that Mr. Enix had not been properly supervised during the applications. I told Mr. Stigall I would need a copy of all the applications that Mr. Enix had completed. He then informed me that he was trying to do everything possible to remedy the situation with his customers. He stated he was planning on reseeding all the injured properties. 7. Mr. Stigall and I also talked about the notification/ invoicing he was leaving with his customers. On the paperwork, it listed “Spraying Services Available…. Weed control, Fertilization, Tree and Shrub, Aquatics, Bare Ground, Flea and Tick, Parking Lots, Perimeter, Fungicide, and More.” I explained to Mr. Stigall that he could not advertise that the company could make tree and shrub, aquatic, or perimeter applications being that the business license only had a 3b (turf) endorsement. 8. Later, Mr. Stigall submitted to me all of Mr. Enix’s application records. Mr. Enix made for hire turf applications on the following dates: • March 12, 13, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30 • April 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 9. The OISC lab reported the following: Sample Number Sample Description Analysis Result SS01 Soil sample from comp. yard Glyphosate 94 PPB Ampa BQL GS02 Grass sample from comp. yard Glyphosate 2532 PPB Ampa 155 PPB Figure 7: Residue results (Ampa= metabolite of glyphosate, PPB=parts per billion, BQL= below quantification limits.) 10. Based on the lab results, it can be deduced that the applicator used glyphosate, a non selective herbicide, in place of the selective broadleaf herbicide. 11. For related cases, please see: 2012/0749 and 2012/0758. Elizabeth C. Carter Date: July 6, 2012 Pesticide Investigator Disposition: Ross Lawn & Landscape was cited for violation of section 65(5) and 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for operating in a careless and negligent manner and 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 Draft Date: July 13, 2012 Compliance Officer Final Date: September 14, 2012 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 and 2: November 20, 2012 Stewart Center, R
Page 3 and 4: -Dave Scott…the proposed minimum
Page 5 and 6: A Summary of Cases 2011/0959 Dispos
Page 7 and 8: CASE SUMMARY Case #2011/0959 Compla
Page 15: the company could make tree and shr
Page 19 and 20: Photo #1: Applicator from U.S. Lawn
Page 21 and 22: suggested that it might be more ben
Page 23 and 24: Complainant: CASE SUMMARY Office of
Page 25 and 26: Complainant: CASE SUMMARY Office of
Page 27 and 28: Indiana Register TITLE 355 STATE CH
Page 29 and 30: Indiana Register (State Chemist of
Page 31 and 32: Indiana Register SECTION 3. 357 IAC
Page 33 and 34: Indiana Register IC 15-3-3.5-25 IC
Page 35 and 36: Indiana Register 355 IAC 4-5-2(6) 3
Page 37 and 38: Indiana Register 355 IAC 5-4-7 Oper
Page 39 and 40: Indiana Register TITLE 355 STATE CH
Page 41 and 42: Indiana Register (A) has the abilit
Page 43 and 44: Indiana Register SECTION 10. 355 IA
Page 45 and 46: corrected. Enforcement action numbe
Page 47: . . Arnold Dr. Gates Road S. Univer

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist - Purdue University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?