A Summary of Civil Penalties 20100178 Disposition: Robert Petro ...

A Summary of Civil Penalties 

20100178 Disposition: Robert Petro was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the 

Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hire or professing 

to be in the business of applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide 

business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed. Criminal 

charges are also pending by IMPD for a Class A Misdemeanor under I.C. 15-16-5-65(9) 

and I.C. 15-16-5-70(a) & (b); and under the Home Improvement Act (I.C. 35-43-6-1-12). 

Aggravating circumstances include the fact that this is the second documented offense by 

Robert Petro and Mr. Brunnemer is over the age of 60 (dob 7-6-1927) as defined in I.C. 

35-43-6-1-13. 

As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Mr. Petro. The case was 

forwarded to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General for collection. 

20100597 Disposition: Eli Ryon was cited for three counts of violation of section 

65(9)(b) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for performing wood 

destroying organism inspections without having an Indiana pesticide business license. A 

civil penalty in the amount of $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. 

20100822 Disposition: Greg King was cited for four (4) violations of section 65(9) 

of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without 

having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 

(4 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given 

to the fact that Mr. King did not tell the complete truth during this investigation and did 

not fully comply with the subpoena. 

As of December 2, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Mr. King. The case was 

forwarded to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General for collection. 

20100838 Disposition: Brent Prior was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the 

Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label drift language. 

Ag Air was cited for five (5) counts of violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide 

Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without having a valid Indiana 

pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,250.00 (5 counts x 

$250.00 per count) was assessed. 

20100854 Disposition: Big Rivers Agri Supply was cited for forty (40) counts of 

violation of section 50 of the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for having mini bulk 

shuttles out of secondary containment past the grace period. A civil penalty in the 

amount of $10,000 (40 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. 

20100887 Disposition:

A. Randy Bryant was cited for violation of 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. However, the civil penalty was held in abeyance provided Mr. 

Bryant becomes properly licensed by November 1, 2010. 

B. As of November 5, 2010, Mr. Bryant had not become licensed. The civil penalty 

in the amount of $250.00 was reassessed. 

C. As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Mr. Bryant. The 

case was forwarded for collection. 

20100945 Disposition: Jetson Taylor was cited for twelve (12) counts of violation of 

section 65(6), specifically 355 IAC 4-2-3, for failure to provide on-site supervision for nonlicensed 

employees. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,500.00 (12 counts x $125.00 per count) 

was assessed. 

20100983 Disposition: Jeff Dungan was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana 

Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label drift language. 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 2009/0729) and there was potential for human 

harm. 

20101037 Disposition: Walter Randy Taylor was cited for violation of section 65(2) 

of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label drift 

directions. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation. In 

addition, the license of Walter Randy Taylor was suspended for a period of one hundred 

and eighty (180) days. Consideration was given to the fact that this was his third offense 

of similar violation (see 2008/0791 & 2010/1019). 

As of December 10, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid. The case was forwarded 

to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General for collection. 

20101068 Disposition: Steve Schaler was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the 

Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label drift directions. A 

civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was 

given to the fact that there was potential for human harm and this was his second offense 

of similar nature (see 2007/0501). 

20101127 Disposition: Twilight Golf Course was warned for violation of section 

65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for 

failure to keep mandatory golf course pesticide application records.

Twilight Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use 

and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a pesticide 

license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

20101128 Disposition: Indian Lakes Golf Course was cited for violation of section 


applying pesticides to a golf course without having an Indiana pesticide license. A civil 

penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

20101133 Disposition: Champion Pointe Golf Club was cited for violation of section 

65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf 

course without having a pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was 

assessed for this violation. 

20101135 Disposition: Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course was warned for violation of 

section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1- 

15-4, for failure to keep mandatory golf course pesticide application records. 

Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana 

Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without 

having a pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this 

violation. 

As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Wyaloosing Creek Golf 

Course. The case was forwarded for collection. 

20101137 Disposition: Country View Golf Course was warned for violation of 



Country View Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana 

Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without 

having a pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this 

violation. 

20101161 Disposition: Crawfordsville Municipal Golf Course was cited for 

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 $250.00 was assessed. 

20101166 Disposition: Christmas Lake Golf Club was warned for violation of 


15-4, for failure to keep mandatory pesticide application records.

Christmas Lake Golf Club was cited for 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 pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of 

$250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

20101173 Disposition: Mark’s Par 3 Golf Course was warned for violation of 



Mark’s Par 3 Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide 

Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a 

pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this 

violation. 

20101181 Disposition: Oak Ridge Golf Course was warned for violation of section 


failure to keep mandatory golf course pesticide application records. 

Oak Ridge Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide 

Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a 

pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this 

violation. 

20101185 DISPOSITION: Mink Lake Golf Course was warned for violation of section 

65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for failure 

to keep mandatory records for pesticide applications to a golf course. 

Mink Lake Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a licensed pesticide 

applicator. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

As of December 10, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid. The case was forwarded to 

collections. 

20101188 DISPOSITION: Lugene Links was cited for 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 $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

20101193 DISPOSITION: Parke County Golf Course was cited for violation of 


15-2, for applying pesticides for hire without having a licensed pesticide applicator. A 

civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

20101122 Disposition: A&E Environmental 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. 

20101146 Disposition: Maplewood Golf Club was cited for violation of section 

65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf 

course without having a pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was 


20101201 Disposition: Property Maintenance was cited for violation of section 

65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for professing to be in the 

business of applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business 


In addition, the information was forwarded to the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office for 

criminal review. 

As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Property Maintenance. 

The case was forwarded for collection. 

20110037 Disposition: Although no violation could be documented regarding the initial 

complaint of drift onto the Gray spruce trees; Mainscape and Gary Reinking were 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 


20110151 Disposition: Country Oaks Golf Club was warned for violation of section 


failure to keep mandatory application records. 

Country Oaks Golf Club was cited for 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 $250.00 


20110179 Disposition: David Wilson was warned for violation of section 65(6) of 

the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2(3), for failure 

to keep mandatory records. 

David Wilson was cited for twelve (12) counts of violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana 

Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2(6), for failure to notify 

the state chemist of preconstruction termite control treatments. A civil penalty in the 

amount of $3,000.00 (12 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed for this violation. 

However, the civil penalty was reduced to $750.00. Consideration was given to the fact

that Monroe Pest Control cooperated during the investigation; corrective action was 

taken; there was no previous history of similar nature and no potential for damage. 

20110182 Disposition: Doug Foster was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the 

Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2(6), for failure to 

notify the state chemist of a preconstruction termite control treatment. A civil penalty in the 

amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

Doug Foster was cited for two (2) counts of violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide 

Use and Application Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates. A civil 

penalty in the amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. 

The total amount of civil penalty assessed for this investigation is $750.00. However, the 

civil penalty was reduced to $412.50. Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Foster 

cooperated during the investigation and corrective action was taken.

CASE SUMMARY 

Complainant: Robert Brunnemer Rich Hayes 

1927 Hanna Avenue 3431 Senour Road 

Indianapolis, IN 46227 Indianapolis, In 46239 

317-784-6421 317-862-4310 

Applicator: Robert Petro Unlicensed Applicator 

Family Tree Care Unlicensed Business 

1638 Wade Street 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46203 

317-875-2365 

Page 1 of 5 

Case #2010/0178 

1. On October 19, 2009, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received information that Robert Petro of 

Family Tree Care was providing for-hire pesticide applications to trees, homes and yards without a license. 

2. On October 19, 2009, I spoke with Rich Hayes. Mr. Hayes is a licensed lawn care professional that provides 

lawn care services to Robert Brunnemer Property. Mr. Hayes stated that he spoke with Mr. Brunnemer at 

church on October 18, 2009. Mr. Hayes stated that Mr. Brunnemer told him that he was charged $200.00; but 

after protest, he paid a $40.00 invoice for a so called tree treatment. Mr. Brunnemer was given a second invoice 

for $1,250.00 for additional treatment by Robert Petro of Family Tree Care. Mr. Hayes provided copies of both 

invoices. See figures 1 and 2. 

Figure 1-$40.00 Invoice

Figure 2-$1250 Invoice 

3. On October 19, 2009, I performed a reverse telephone number search on the internet with the numbers provided 

on the invoice given to Mr. Brunnemer. One phone number, 787-7090, returned a name and address for a Betty 

and Bobby Moran, 1638 Wade St., Indianapolis, IN 46203. I followed up with Dr. George Saxton, Compliance 

Officer for OISC, to run the telephone number through the police entersect database. Dr. Saxton confirmed the 

telephone number as being the telephone and address for Betty and Bobby Moran. 

4. On October 20, 2009, I met with Mr. Brunnemer at his residence. Mr. Brunnemer stated that a man showed up 

at his house on October 15, 2009, stating he had just sprayed his tree’s and needed $200.00. Mr. Brunnemer 

stated he did not order any tree work. The man identified himself as Robert Petro and that they had made the 

arrangements last spring. Mr. Petro told Mr. Brunnemer that he “witnessed” him when he was “saved”. Mr. 

Brunnemer stated there was some reference to Villa Oaks Baptist Church. Mr. Brunnemer stated the Mr. Petro 

stated he lived around State St. and Wade St. in Indianapolis, Indiana. Mr. Petro walked Mr. Brunnemer around 

to the side yard to the hickory tree and told him he had bugs. Mr. Brunnemer stated that Mr. Petro left and 

returned stating he owed $60.00 for the treatment for bugs. Mr. Brunnemer stated he protested, but agreed to 

pay $40.00 to get Mr. Petro to leave. See figure 1 for the invoice. Mr. Brunnemer stated that Mr. Petro 

returned later that evening stating he needs to have his blue spruce tree treated and the foundation around his 

house treated for carpenter ants. Mr. Brunnemer stated that before leaving Mr. Petro dug a trench next to the 

foundation on the north and east side. Mr. Brunnemer stated that Mr. Petro left but left his tools. Mr. 

Brunnemer said Mr. Petro returned in the morning of October 18, 2009, with two men, who he stated were his 

sons. Mr. Petro presented Mr. Brunnemer with an invoice for $1,250.00 for treatment of the blue spruce and the 

bug treatment. See figure 2 for the invoice. Mr. Brunnemer stated he protested but agreed to pay $50.00 to get 

Mr. Petro to leave. Mr. Brunnemer stated that Mr. Petro was driving an older dark colored full size pickup 

truck with sticks in the bed. 

Page 2 of 5

5. On October 20, 2009, I collected a soil sample next to the foundation alleged to have been treated for carpenter 

ants. I labeled the sample with designation of “SS”. I collected a control sample from Mr. Brunnemer’s front 

yard, designated as “C-1”. I photographed Mr. Brunnemer’s property including areas of suspected treatment. 

See figures 3-7. 

Figure 3-Hickory tree Figure 4-Alleged treatment holes 

Figure 5-Blue Spruce Figure 6-Alleged treatment hole 

Figure 7-Evidence of disturbed soil next to foundation, reported to be a trench. 

6. On October 20, 2009, I drove down the alley behind 1638 Wade Street. I observed a two-tone black and brown 

older full sized pickup truck with sticks in the bed parked on the property of 1638 Wade Street. The license 

plate number read AY 5719. A check of the license plate number came back as being registered to a Kim 

Moran. 

7. On October 20, 2009, I researched tree care business in the area of Wade Street. I found a tree service 

company, Complete Tree Care & Landscape addressed at 1641 Wade Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. A search of 

OISC’s data base showed that Complete Tree Care & Landscape is licensed and owned by Doug McKinney. I 

contacted Mr. McKinney questioning him about other tree companies on Wade Street. Mr. McKinney stated he 

owns and rents the property at 1641 Wade Street. Mr. McKinney stated that the residence across the street from 

his, 1638 Wade Street, has been linked to tree companies and relatives of the “Petro Boys”. Mr. McKinney said 

that there is a tree company in the Wanamaker, Indiana area that may be related to the Petro family. 


8. On October 20, 2009, I met with Reverend Kevin Willis of Villa Oaks Baptist Church located at 2650 Villa 

Ave, Indianapolis, Indiana. Reverend Willis stated that the church has a parishioner named John Petro, who 

does tree work for the church. Reverend Willis stated his son has worked with John Petro on tree jobs in the 

past. Reverend Willis provided me with the phone number 317-833-7093. 

9. On October 22, 2009, I transported the samples to OISC’s Residue lab for analysis. OISC’s lab assigned the 

following lab numbers to the samples: 

Sample C-1 assigned lab number of 2010-0016 

Sample SS assigned lab number of 2010-0017 

10. On October 27, 2009, I contacted the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) Organized Crime 

Division and spoke with Detective Dodson regarding this case. 

11. On November 6, 2009, I requested the lawn care treatment information from Green Acres Landscape LLC for 

Mr. Brennemer’s property. The invoice from Green Acres shows that the only lawn care application took place 

on October 29, 2009. The application dated October 29, 2009, would have taken place after the alleged 

applications made by Robert Petro and Family Tree Care. 

12. On November 6, 2009, I spoke with Mr. Brunnemer. I asked if he or his wife had used Diazinon, Miracle Gro, 

or Preen in the last few years. Mr. Brunnemer stated he had used Diazinon in the past and his wife uses Preen 

in the flower beds. 

13. On November 9, 2009, I requested treatment information from Atlas Pest Control for Mr. Brunnemer’s 

property. Atlas Pest Control is the company Mr. Brunnemer hires to provide pest control services. On 

November 13, 2009, I received a letter from Robert Greene, owner of Atlas Pest Control. Mr. Greene’s letter 

stated that he made a treatment on May 9, 2000, using a product called Knox Out. And on September 13, 2004, 

made an application for carpenter ants using the product Talstar. 

14. On December 1, 2009, OISC’s Residue Lab reported the following lab sample results: 

Sample #20100016/C-1; Control soil sample 

Chlordane CONF 

Sample #20100017/SS; soil sample next to foundation of house 

Chlordane CONF 

Diazinon CONF 

Trifluralin CONF 

Bifenthrin CONF 

CONF = Confirmed 

15. The pesticides detected by OISC’s residue lab can plausibly be accounted for by applications made by the 

Brunnemer’s and Atlas Pest Control. 

a. Chlordane has not been registered federally since 1988. Existing stocks were to be used by 1990. 

b. Bifenthrin is an active ingredient in Talstar, which was applied in 2004. 

c. Mr. Brunnemer stated he used Diazinon in previous years. 

d. Mr. Brunnemer stated his wife has used Preen in the flower beds. Trifluralin is the active ingredient in 

Preen. 

16. On December 3, 2009, I met with John Petro, owner of Doctor Tree & Landscape Specialist at McDonalds 

located at Post Road and Interstate 74. John Petro stated his business is located at 9545 Pentecost Road in 

Indianapolis, Indiana. John Petro stated that Robert Petro is his brother and he is “ripping people off” using the 

business name Family Tree Care. John Petro stated that his brother has used his business name to “rip off” his 

customers. John Petro stated his brother is on drugs and will get aggressive. John Petro stated he tried to have 

his brother arrested on Thanksgiving 2009, by inviting him to dinner. However, Robert Petro never showed and 

John Petro was unable to call the police. John Petro stated that his brother is running around with a new 

girlfriend and does not have an address for him. John Petro verified that one of the phone numbers, 875-2365, 


on the Brunnemer invoice is Robert Petro’s cell phone number. John Petro stated that Kim Moran is Robert 

Petro’s ex-wife. John Petro provided me with Kim Moran’s cell phone number, 306-1803. John Petro stated 

that their son, Mark Petro, works for Doctor Tree & Landscape. John Petro stated that sometime “last week” 

Robert Petro sold his truck to a “drug dealer”. John Petro stated that Robert and the new girlfriend saw a car for 

sale, used Mark Petro’s information to test drive the car and did not return it. 

17. On December 3, 2009, I questioned John Petro regarding the 2008 case, case number 2008/0276, that OISC 

investigated for the business, Tree Boys, Inc. I informed John Petro that Tree Boys, Ron Pruitt, Stephan Petro 

and John Petro were assessed a civil penalty of $500.00 and the case was forwarded to IMPD for a criminal 

investigation. John Petro stated he was not associated with Tree Boys. John Petro stated he was incorporated 

as Doctor Tree at that time. I requested that John Petro provide proof of incorporation for Doctor Tree for every 

year of incorporation. I questioned John Petro regarding this case because the case summary references the 

name, Robert Petro, as the individual in the January 28, 2008, incident. See case summary 2008/0276. John 

Petro stated he did not know anything about the case. John Petro has not provided proof of Doctor Tree’s 

incorporations at this time. 

18. On December 7, 2009, I contacted Kim Moran. Ms. Moran stated that she has never been married to Robert 

Petro, but was with him for 13 years and has 2 children, one of which is Mark Petro. Ms. Moran stated they are 

no longer together. Ms. Moran stated that Robert Petro was living at 1638 Wade St. for a few months after 

being released from prison. Ms. Moran verified that the telephone number on the Brunnemer Invoice, 875- 

2365, is Robert Petro’s cell phone number. Ms. Moran verified that the telephone number, 787-7090, is the 

telephone number for 1638 Wade St. Ms. Moran stated she sold the older two-tone pickup truck to Robert 

Petro, but failed to take the license plate off. Ms. Moran stated the plate was at the tow yard because Robert 

Petro got the vehicle impounded. Ms. Moran mentioned the car incident in which Robert Petro used Mark 

Petro’s information. Ms. Moran stated that Robert Petro is a “conman, crack user, and is collecting money from 

old people”. Ms. Moran further stated that Robert Petro is running around with his new girlfriend “Trish”. 

19. On December 8, 2009, I met with Detective Wayne Shelton of the IMPD Organized Crime Branch. I forwarded 

information from my investigation of Robert Petro to Detective Shelton. I informed Detective Shelton that he 

would receive a copy of my case summary. 

Paul J. Kelley Date: December 9, 2009 

Pesticide Investigator 

Disposition: Robert Petro was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law 

for applying pesticides for hire or professing to be in the business of applying pesticides for hire without having an 

Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed. Criminal charges are 

also pending by IMPD for a Class A Misdemeanor under I.C. 15-16-5-65(9) and I.C. 15-16-5-70(a) & (b); and under 

the Home Improvement Act (I.C. 35-43-6-1-12). 

Aggravating circumstances include the fact that this is the second documented offense by Robert Petro and Mr. 

Brunnemer is over the age of 60 (dob 7-6-1927) as defined in I.C. 35-43-6-1-13. 

As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Mr. Petro. The case was forwarded to the Office of 

the Indiana Attorney General for collection. 

George N. Saxton Draft Date: November 22, 2010 

Compliance Officer Final Date: December 27, 2010 

CC Detective Wayne Shelton 

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department 

Criminal Investigations Organized Crime Branch 

3229 N. Shade land Avenue, Suite C 

Indianapolis, IN 46226 

317-327-3658 


Complainant: Richard Stone 

7545 S. Delaware Street 

Indianapolis, IN 46227 

317-865-9057 

CASE SUMMARY 

Applicator: Elija Ryon Unlicensed Applicator 

Ron Taylor Unlicensed Applicator 

Ryon Pest Control Unlicensed Business 

598 E. King Street 

Franklin, IN 46131 

317-503-0068 


Case #2010/0597 

1. On April 19, 2010, Richard Stone contacted the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) alleging that 

Ron Taylor and Elija Ryon performed pest control service at his residence without being licensed. Mr. 

Stone called Bob Ryon Pest Control to perform annual service. Mr. Stone stated he called the phone 

number he has called each year, 317-222-1914, and scheduled his annual termite inspection with 

“Cecilia”. On April 13, 2010, Ron Taylor and Elija Ryon, both unlicensed, inspected his residence for 

termites and sprayed something around the house. Mr. Stone stated he was charged $90.00 for the service 

and was advised he had a mold problem. Mr. Stone stated he learned Ron Taylor and Elija Ryon where 

not licensed and requested his money back. Mr. Stone stated that Elija Ryon refunded him the $90.00. 

2. In January 2010, Bob Ryon, only certified applicator for Bob Ryon Pest Control died. Bob Ryon Pest 

Control ceased to be a licensed for-hire pest control business. Ron Taylor and Elija Ryon, employees of 

Bob Ryon Pest Control, allegedly continued to performing service as Bob Ryon Pest Control without 

being licensed. 

3. On April 22, 2010, I met with Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone provided me with copies of Invoices # 725307 for 

service on April 13, 2010, and the refunding Invoice #153988 of the $90.00 on April 20, 2010. Mr. Stone 

stated that Elija went around the house and sprayed something next to his foundation and window sills. 

Mr. Stone gave me a copy of the advertisement flier Elija Ryon was passing out. See figure 1. 

Figure 1-Flier for Eli Ryon Services

4. On April 22, 2010, I collected the following sample to be analyzed by OISC’s Residue Lab; 

Lab Sample # Invest. Sample # Description Result 

2010-0075 SC-1 Control swab sample 

2010-0076 SW-1 Swab sample from north window 

2010-0077 SW-2 Swab sample from east window 

2010-0078 C-1 Control soil sample 

2010-0079 SS-1 Soil sample from north east side of foundation 

5. On April 22, 2010, I met with Elija Ryon in Franklin, Indiana. Mr. Ryon stated be was only doing 

inspections and not applying pesticides. Mr. Ryon stated Ron Taylor does work with him. Mr. Ryon 

stated he was unaware he needed a license to do inspections. Mr. Ryon stated that his flier was a misprint 

and was not supposed to have termite or pest control services. Mr. Ryon stated he had performed other 

inspections. I issued Mr. Ryon, along with Ron Taylor, a Stop Order from performing for hire pest control 

without a license. 

6. On April 26, 2010, I spoke with Ron Taylor. Mr. Taylor Stated he works with Elija Ryon but only 

performs work related to drainage issues. Mr. Taylor stated Mr. Ryon was in charge of the pest control 

services. I informed Mr. Taylor that I issued a Stop Order for applying pesticides without a license in both 

his and Mr. Ryon’s name. 

7. On May 7, 2010, Mr. Ryon provided me with copies of invoices for inspections he had performed without 

a license. 

A. April 15, 2010 performed two (2) annual inspections –Invoice 153980 & 153981 

B. April 17, 2010 performed two (2) annual inspections – Invoice 1539 & 153987 

C. April 19, 2010 performed an annual inspection – Invoice 153982 

8. On June 4, 2010, I received lab results from OISC’s Residue Lab 

Lab 

Sample # 

Invest. 

Sample # 

Description Result 

2010-0075 SC-1 Control swab sample BDL 

2010-0076 SW-1 Swab sample from north window Piperonyl butoxide CONF 

cyfluthrin CONF 

2010-0077 SW-2 Swab sample from east window Piperonyl butoxide CONF 

cyfluthrin CONF 

2010-0078 C-1 Control soil sample BDL 

2010-0079 SS-1 Soil sample from northeast side of foundation chlordane CONF 

Piperonyl butoxide CONF 

fipronil CONF 

BDL=Below Detection Limits CONF=Confirmed 

Paul J. Kelley Date: June 8, 2010 


Disposition: Eli Ryon was cited for three counts of violation of section 65(9)(b) of the Indiana Pesticide Use 

and Application Law for performing wood destroying organism inspections without having an Indiana 

pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $750.00 (3 counts x $250.00 per count) was 

assessed. 

George N. Saxton Draft Date: June 11, 2010 

Compliance Officer Final Date: November 23, 2010 


Complainant: George Niemeyer 

100 Overlook Point 

Aurora, IN 47001 

812-926-0089 

CASE SUMMARY 

Applicator: Sparkling Cleaners Unlicensed business 

Greg King Unlicensed applicator 

4855 Shoreline Drive 

Harrison, OH 45030 

513-546-7321 

513-693-3843 


Case #2010/0822 

1. On May 7, 2010, Mr. George Niemeyer contacted the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) in 

regard to a bed bug application made by Mr. Greg King of Sparkling Cleaners. Mr. Niemeyer stated 

that Mr. King sprayed Mr. Martin VanTyle’s apartment at Harborview in Aurora. A check of the 

OISC database indicated Mr. King was not licensed. 

2. Please also see related case summary 2010/0960 involving the applications Orkin made at 

Harborview Apartments. 

3. On May 12, 2010, I met with Mr. Niemeyer at his home. Mr. Niemeyer is the son-in-law of Mr. 

VanTyle. Mr. Niemeyer showed me an ad in the Lawrenceburg newspaper, The Journal Press, where 

Mr. King was advertising. The ad stated: 

“Sparkling Cleaners commercial/ residential Serving the Tri-state 20 years. Fully insured. One call 

we do it all. Specializing in bed bug removal. Call 513-546-7321 or 513-693-3843.” 

Additionally, this same ad was run in the Dearborn County Register on May 6, 2010. 

Mr. Niemeyer also gave me two invoices from the service Mr. King performed. They are as follows: 

• Invoice 161904- “Spray for bed bugs to kill on 3-28-2010 Pymt in full for spraying today will 

need to spray one more time to eliminate bed bugs.” Dated 3-28-2010 

• Invoice 161909- “Spray apt and cleaning of apt.” Dated 4-12-2010 

4. Later that same day, I spoke with Mr. King on the phone. I asked to meet with him, and we agreed on 

May 18 at 10:00 AM. A few minutes later Mr. King called back and stated he could not meet with 

me and wanted to discuss this issue over the phone. I insisted that we needed to meet in person. Mr. 

King agreed to meet May 25 at 10:00 AM at the McDonalds in Harrison, Ohio. 

5. On May 25, 2010, at 9:50AM, I arrived at McDonalds to meet with Mr. King. I waited for a half 

hour, but Mr. King never came. I called one of his phone numbers and his fiancée answered. I asked 

her the whereabouts of Mr. King and she stated she wasn’t sure. I then called the other number a few 

times but I kept getting a busy signal.

6. On June 3, 2010, the OISC sent Mr. King a subpoena. It stated, “You are to produce for inspection 

and copying, to the representative of the Indiana Pesticide Review Board, certain designated 

documents or electronically stored information, or to produce for inspection and copying, testing, or 

sampling of certain designated tangible things that are in your possession, custody or control, as 

described more particularly below: All pesticide application records for pesticide applications made 

by sparkling cleaners for 2008, 2009, and 2010.” 

7. On June 14, 2010, the OISC received a response from Mr. King. It stated in part: “Here is a copy of 

an invoice for the one job that I did do in Indiana. I talked to you on 6-10-2010 on the phone. Like I 

told you I only did this one job in Indiana…” 

The attached invoice is as follows: 

• Invoice 161027- “Spray of apt for bed bugs…” Dated 4-13-2010 

Please note this is a different invoice from the two listed above. 

8. On June 25, 2010, I received a few emails from Mr. Chuck Hagedorn, the Board President for the 

Aurora Community Housing d/b/a Harborview Apartments. In his first email Mr. Hagedorn attached 

an invoice of service from Mr. King for another tenant at Harborview, Ms. Opal Peelman. The 

invoice is as follows: 

• Invoice 161906- “Spray of 1 bedroom apartment” Dated 4-6-2010 

In another email from Mr. Hagedorn, he stated that the apartment complex had a saved voicemail 

recording from Mr. King. In the message, Mr. King stated that there were no live bed bugs left in 

Marvin Van Tyle’s apartment “after I (Mr. King) sprayed.” 

Finally, in one more email, Mr. Hagedorn recalled having a phone conversation in April with Mr. 

King in which Mr. King stated he was licensed to make pesticide applications in Indiana and Ohio. 

Elizabeth C. Carter Date: July 22, 2010 


Disposition: Greg King was cited for four (4) violations of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license. A 

civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 (4 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed for this violation. 

Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. King did not tell the complete truth during this investigation 

and did not fully comply with the subpoena. 

As of December 2, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Mr. King. The case was forwarded to the 

Office of the Indiana Attorney General for collection. 

George N. Saxton Draft Date: July 28, 2010 



Complainant: Jason Hartman 

5058 W. CR 200 S. 

Portland, IN 47371 

CASE SUMMARY 

Owner : David Miller Licensed Applicator 

Applicator: Brent Prior Licensed Applicator 

Business: Ag Air Licensed Business 

661 W. CR 100 N. 

Portland, IN 47371 

260-726-4901 


Case #2010/0838 

1. On 5-11-2010, Jason Hartman contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report that trees 

and ornamentals on his property appeared to have been affected by drift from an aerial application made to 

an adjacent farm field. 

2. On 5-11-2010, I spoke with Mr. Hartman, who stated that he remembered seeing a white plane spraying a 

couple of days the previous week. He reported that plants on his property developed discolored and 

spotted leaves within a week of the application and now leaves are dropping off his maple trees. Mr. 

Hartman indicated he could not meet me the following day but his neighbor to the north, Todd Penrod, 

who also reported having symptoms on his property, would be available to meet me. 

3. On 5-12-2010, I went to the Hartman property, which is located on the northwest corner of the intersection 

of CR 200 S. and CR 500 W. in Jay County. The field in question is directly across the road to the south 

of the Hartman property. Weeds and grasses in the field were beginning to die. The Hartmans have a 

variety of trees, shrubs and ornamentals on the property. Widespread spotting of leaves was visible across 

plant species, especially in the front portion of the property which faces the field. Large maples in the 

front yard exhibited crinkled, brown leaves, some of which were dropping prematurely. Ornamentals, 

including Rose of Sharon in a bed along the driveway, peonies near the road and petunias in half-barrels 

flanking the driveway, were exhibiting necrotic spots and burned leaf edges. North of the garage, leaves 

on strawberry plants and flowers were spotted and, near the pond, spruce trees exhibited brown needles on 

the side facing the field (south). I noticed that broadleaf weeds in the lawn were exhibiting growth 

regulator-type symptoms, as if they had been sprayed. These symptoms were not consistent with those 

seen on trees and ornamentals. I photographed the site, documenting the symptoms I observed. 

4. I collected plant samples from several species, including maples, peony, spruce, Rose of Sharon, pear and 

strawberry for submission to the Plant & Pest Diagnostic Lab (PPDL) at Purdue. I also collected a foliage 

sample from one of the maples in the front yard and a swab sample from a window on the front porch of 

the house; these samples were submitted to the OISC residue lab for analysis. 

Fig.1 Driveway and target field Fig.2 Peony near road Fig.3 Flowers in half-barrel near driveway

Fig.4 Maple foliage Fig.5 Spruce Fig.6 Strawberries 

5. Mr. Penrod, the neighbor, then arrived and we discussed the incident. He stated that he observed similar, 

yet less severe, symptoms on vegetation at his property. I mentioned the curling weeds observed in the 

lawn and Mr. Penrod indicated he sprayed the Hartmans’ lawn for weeds in April. We then went to Mr. 

Penrod’s property to the north. A farm field separates the Hartman and Penrod properties. Mr. Penrod 

stated this field had not been sprayed and stated that the planting equipment was still in the field. His 

maples and ornamentals did exhibit similar symptoms to those seen on the Hartman property and his 

maples were also dropping brown leaves. Mr. Penrod showed me a container of Triplet herbicide (EPA 

Reg. #228-264) which he reportedly used on the Hartmans’ lawn. 

6. I talked to several area farmers and determined that the only field sprayed near the Hartman property was 

the field across the road to the south. I talked to Brent Prior of Ag Air and he confirmed that he sprayed 

the field in question for Steve Godfrey. The field was reportedly sprayed in sections and was started at 

9am on 5-4-2010 near the Hartman property; the southern-most section of the field was sprayed on 5-7- 

2010. Mr. Prior reportedly sprayed a tank mix containing: 

Buccaneer Plus EPA Reg. #55467-9, active ingredient (a.i.) glyphosate 

Gangster EPA Reg. #59639-131, a.i. flumioxazin and cloransulam 

Parallel EPA Reg. #66222-87, a.i. metolachlor 

Mr. Prior indicated he did not spray the two swaths along CR 200 S. in an effort to minimize the potential 

for drift across the road. Winds were reportedly out of the west-southwest, toward the Hartman property, 

at 6-10mph at the beginning of the application. Mr. Prior also reportedly stopped spraying the field 

because of increased wind speeds late in the morning. Recorded wind data at Muncie indicated winds 

were from the west at 9.2mph at 8:53am and 8.1mph at 9:53am; the west winds increased to13.8mph with 

gusts to 19.6mph at 10:53am. 

7. On 5-12-2010, Mr. Hartman reported that he had talked to Mr. Prior and was informed that Ag Air does 

not have insurance coverage for herbicide applications. I informed Mr. Hartman that Ag Air had to have 

liability insurance to obtain an Indiana pesticide business license in 2009. I contacted OISC Certification 

& Licensing Manager, Leo Reed, regarding Ag Air’s coverage. According to OISC records, Ag Air 

owner David Miller signed the Indiana Pesticide Business License Renewal Application on 10-26-2009, 

indicating continuous insurance coverage was maintained for the previous 12 months. Mr. Miller checked 

with his insurance carrier and learned that, after signing the OISC renewal, he failed to renew his 

insurance policy for 2010. Mr. Reed advised Mr. Miller that the business license for Ag Air and all 

associated applicators was invalid as of 11-26-2009, the date of his insurance expiration, and that he could 

not make pesticide applications. Mr. Reed also sent a letter via regular and certified mail informing Mr. 

Miller his licenses were invalid and advising him that any applications made were done so unlawfully. 

8. On 6-1-2010, I went to Ag Air at the Portland Airport to inspect Ag Air’s application records. Mr. Miller 

provided records indicating the following for-hire pesticide applications were made: 

4-28-2010 2,4-D herbicide application for Davidson 

5-4-2010 Buccaneer Plus, Gangster, Parallel herbicide applications for Godfrey 

5-7-2010 Buccaneer Plus, Gangster, Parallel herbicide applications for Godfrey 

5-10-2010 Prosaro fungicide application for New Era Ag 

5-12-2010 Prosaro fungicide application for New Era Ag 


9. The report from the PPDL indicated there was no evidence of infectious disease organisms on the foliage 

samples submitted. Further, it stated drift from Gangster could result in the leaf burn and spotting 

observed on the foliage of the various plants submitted. Drift from metolachlor most likely caused no 

damage and yellowing from glyphosate was not observed. Finally, drift from Parallel causes no foliar 

contact injury. 

10. The OISC residue lab reported the following active ingredients were detected: 

Sample #838-2 Swab from window on front porch Glyphosate was confirmed 

Sample #838-3 Maple foliage Metolachlor 24 parts per billion 

Cloransulam 14 parts per billion 

Glyphosate 9849 parts per billion 

11. The Buccaneer Plus label reads, in part, “AVOID DRIFT” and “The product 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).” The Gangster label reads, in part, “Do not apply when 

weather conditions favor drift from treated areas.” 

Andrew R. Roth Date: October 11, 2010 


Disposition: Brent Prior was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application 

Law for failure to follow label drift language. 

Ag Air was cited for five (5) counts of violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law for applying pesticides for hire without having a valid Indiana pesticide business license. 

A civil penalty in the amount of $1,250.00 (5 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. 

George N. Saxton Draft Date: October 25, 2010 



CASE SUMMARY 

Complainant: Office of Indiana State Chemist 

175 S. University Street 

West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063 

800-893-6637 


Case #2010/0854 

Dealer: Big Rivers Agri Supply 

Jason Harmon Warehouse Manager 

5780 South 200 East 

Lebanon, Indiana 46052 

765-482-7010 

1. On May 17, 2010, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OICS) received information from 

OISC Fertilizer inspector Tom Smith concerning a possible containment violation. While 

conducting a routine inspection, Mr. Smith found pesticide min-bulks with no containment. 

He was unsure if the mini-bulks were out of containment for more than 30 days. 

2. On May 18, 2010, I made contact with the Jason Harmon of Big Rivers Ag Supply. I 

presented my OISC credentials and issued him a Notice of Inspection (NOI). I explained that 

our office had received information concerning mini-bulk shuttles being out of containment 

for possibly more than 30 days. Mr. Harmon confirmed they did have mini-bulk shuttles 

containing pesticide in their warehouse. He was unaware that they had to be in containment. I 

explained there were administrative laws concerning pesticide containers of more than 55 

gallons. If any of those pesticide containers was being held for more than 30 days, then it 

needed to be in containment. We then checked the warehouse for the mini-bulk shuttles. I 

found no containment area in the warehouse. I requested invoices for those mini-bulks in the 

warehouse. Mr. Harmon stated that he needed some time to search for those invoices. I told 

him that I would return on May 19, 2010, for the information. Before leaving I took an 

inventory of the product names of the mini-bulk shuttles in the warehouse. Several of the 

shuttles were not pesticides. They were additives for the application of pesticides. Listed 

below are the product names and EPA numbers of those shuttles. 

Buccaneer Plus (EPA #55467-9) Extreme (EPA #241-405) 

Credit Extra (EPA #71368-20) GlyFos Xtra (EPA #4787-23) 

Weedone LV 4 EC (EPA #228-139-71368) 

3. On May 19, 2010, I met with Mr. Harmon. He supplied documentation of invoices for the 

pesticide shuttles in the warehouse. According to the invoices, Weedone LV 4 EC was 

received at the warehouse on March 10, 2010. All other shuttles were received at a more 

recent date. Instituting the "containment rule", the Weedone LV 4 EC would have been 

required to be in containment after 30 days or beginning April 10, 2010. Therefore, as of 

May 19, 2010, the Weedone LV 4 EC had been out of containment for 40 days. After

advising Mr. Harmon of this information, he told me he was making arrangements to have 

those shuttles shipped back to the home office in Owensboro, Kentucky. 

4. On June 14, 2010, I made contact with Mr. Harmon for the status of the remaining shuttles in 

the warehouse. All shuttles that had been out containment on the previous visit had been 

shipped to customers or to the home office in Owensboro, Kentucky. 

Kevin W. Gibson Date: September 29, 2010 


Disposition: Big Rivers Agri Supply was cited for forty (40) counts of violation of section 50 of 

the Indiana Pesticide Registration Law for having mini bulk shuttles out of secondary 

containment past the grace period. A civil penalty in the amount of $10,000 (40 counts x 

$250.00 per count) was assessed. 

George N. Saxton Draft Date: September 30, 2010 



CASE SUMMARY 

Complainant: Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) 

175 South University Street 


800-893-6637 

Applicator: American Lawn Care 

Randy Bryant 

9730 Alans Branch Road 

Moores Hill, IN 47032 

812-926-2750 

812-584-7871 

Case #2010/0887 

1. On May 13, 2010, I was looking through the Lawrenceburg newspaper, The Journal Press, when I noticed an 

advertisement for lawn care. It stated: 

“American Lawn Care, veteran owned and operated. Customized services: mowing, trimming, weed control, 

mulch, spring and fall clean up, and Roto-tilling, etc. 812-926-2750 home, 812-584-7871 mobile” 

A check of the “Anywho website” listed Randy Bryant as the name associated with the phone number. 

According to the OISC database, neither Mr. Bryant nor American Lawn Care was licensed. 

2. On May 18, 2010, Agent Joe Becovitz and I went to Mr. Bryant’s home. I introduced myself and showed Mr. 

Bryant the ad. I explained to Mr. Bryant that he needed to be licensed in Indiana to apply pesticides for hire. 

Additionally I gave him some information on being licensed. Mr. Bryant explained he was not aware he needed 

to be licensed to make applications. He went onto to say that he would get licensed. I then informed Mr. 

Bryant that he could not make any applications for hire until he got licensed. 

3. On May 24, 2010, I received an email from Mr. Bryant. It stated: 

“On Thursday April 15th 2010 I did apply granular weed out to a residential lawn. The address is 211 Joseph 

Lane Aurora IN 47001. I did not know I had to have a license until informed by Beth Carter and WILL NOT 

treat any more yards until licensed in October.” 

Elizabeth C. Carter Date: May 24, 2010 


Disposition: 

A. Randy Bryant was cited for violation of 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. However, the civil penalty was held in abeyance 

provided Mr. Bryant becomes properly licensed by November 1, 2010. 

B. As of November 5, 2010, Mr. Bryant had not become licensed. The civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 

was reassessed. 

C. As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Mr. Bryant. The case was forwarded for 

collection. 

George N. Saxton Draft Date: May 27, 2010 

Compliance Officer Second Draft Date: November 5, 2010 

Final Date: December 27, 2010

Complainant: Tim Baker 

2142 E 800 N 

Ossian, IN 46777 

260-760-6017 

CASE SUMMARY 

Applicator: H & D Machines LLC 

Billy Stafford and Derek Dyer Unlicensed 

Jetson Taylor Certified Applicator 

127 Russell Drive 

Meridan, MS 39303 

601-693-9142 


Case #2010/0945 

1. On June 4, 2010, Mr. Tim Baker contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) in regard to a 

right of way (ROW) application to a neighboring railroad. According to Mr. Baker, the application 

‘damaged’ his corn and soybean field. 

2. On June 8, 2010, I met with Mr. Baker at his farm. The corn and soybean field in question were west 

of the railroad tracks, and the corn field was due north of the soybean field. Please see figure below. 

Fig 1: Google earth image 

Mr. Baker was very concerned about his corn and soybean field. He explained that his corn was 

purpling and stunted. He went on to say that his soybean stand was very thin, and the soybeans had 

puckered leaves. Mr. Baker stated the corn field was sprayed at planting with Bicep Magnum and 

Balance Flexx on April 14, 2010. The soybean field was sprayed before planting on April 5, 2010, 

with Canopy Ex and 2,4-D. 

Upon examining the corn field, I observed some of the corn was malformed and curled over by the 

railroad tracks. I also noted some purple striping on the older leaves of the corn plant; however, I 

found this scenario in other portions of the field. Additionally, I noticed that the area of the field by 

the railroad tracks was in a low spot, and it appeared that this area would be prone to holding excess

water. (Mr. Baker confirmed this observation.) I also observed some ‘unaffected’ weeds between the 

tracks and the malformed corn. Please see figures below. 

Fig 2: Corn field looking toward RR Fig 3: Corn by RR (low area) 

Fig 4: Corn malformed Fig 5: Weeds between corn and tracks 

Upon examining the soybean field, I noticed the stand was very thin by the railroad tracks. The 

soybeans in this area were stunted, and the leaves were yellowing and brittle. Soybeans away from 

the track appeared fuller and greener. I did notice some thriving weeds between the tracks and the 

soybean field. Please see figures below. 

Fig 6: Soybeans looking toward RR Fig 7: Soybeans away from RR 

Fig 8: Soybeans by RR up close Fig 9: Weeds between RR and soybeans 


3. A few corn and soybean plants were taken for submission to the Purdue Plant and Pest Diagnostic 

Laboratory (PPDL). In addition, corn and soybean vegetation samples were taken for submission to 

the OISC residue lab along with a control corn and soybean sample. Finally, soil was collected along 

the railroad and submitted to the OISC residue lab. 

4. According to information received from Jetson Taylor of H& D Machines (the ROW contractor), 

Billy Stafford and Derek Dyer applied glyphosate (EPA Reg. #81927-9, AI: glyphosate), SFM Extra 

(EPA Reg. #81927-5, AI: metsulfuron methyl and sulfometuron methyl) and Milestone VM (EPA 

Reg. #62719-537, AI: triisopropanolammonium salt) on May 16, 2010, between 8:00 AM and 4:00 

PM along the ROW. 

5. A check of the OISC database indicated that the two pesticide applicators, Billy Stafford and Derek 

Dyer, were not licensed at time of application. Since then, Mr. Stafford applied for his license on 

June 23, 2010, and then received his license on August 5, 2010. 

6. I contacted Mr. Taylor to request a copy of the pesticide application records for Mr. Stafford and Mr. 

Dyer in Indiana during 2010. On August 9, 2010, I received an email from Mr. Taylor with a copy of 

Mr. Stafford’s spray application records in Indiana. According to the records, Mr. Stafford made for 

hire ROW applications in 2010 on the following dates: 

May 14 May 23 

May 15 May 24 

May 16 May 25 

May 19 May 28 

May 20 May 29 

May 22 June 2 

7. I spoke with Mr. Taylor at a later date and explained to him that no one could make for hire pesticide 

applications unless they were licensed or under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. Mr. 

Taylor stated that he was frequently in the area during these applications; however, he was not 

physically on site. I explained to him that he needed to be on site to meet the requirements of 

supervision. 

8. According to weather information obtained from Weather Underground for Fort Wayne, Indiana on 

May 16, 2010, between 8 and 4, the wind was blowing between 10 and 20 miles per hour out of the 

east and northeast with gusts up to 27 miles per hour. This means the wind would have been blowing 

from the point of application toward the agricultural fields. 

Fig 10: Weather data for May 16, 2010 

9. The PPDL report for the corn sample submitted stated in part; “Symptoms seen in corn plants 

submitted were malformed leaves, leaves inability to separate from the whorl. Several plants are 

showing “ladder-like” symptoms. 

This can be suggestive of two scenarios. The first and most likely is chloroacetamide injury. We 

have seen injury in fairly large plants that have experienced cold wet weather. In some cases, it has 

been associated with products containing s-metolachlor, an active ingredient of Bicep Magnum. 


For more information [http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2009/CornInjury09.html] 

If injury were confined to location where standing water was then this would lend support to the 

above scenario. Plus a rainfall event shortly after application could exacerbate this situation. We 

have already experienced a fair amount of chloroacetamide injury within the state. 

The symptoms can also be somewhat associated with growth regulator injury. However, typically 

symptoms are onion leafing, bowing of the stocks, fusing of brace roots, brittleness, etc. “Ladderlike” 

symptoms are typically not growth regulator associated.” 

Glenn Nice 

10. The PPDL report for the soybean sample submitted stated in part; “Symptoms seen in soybean 

samples submitted are strapping of the leaves with a chlorosis almost to the point of bleaching. In 

some of these malformed leaves, there is a mottling effect with patches of green. Mention of brittle 

stems was in the submission report. 

Symptoms are suggestive of growth regulator injury. This would support a drift scenario from a 

right-of-way application [also see sample report 515]. Confirm pattern to lend support and spray 

records from the right-of-way application company. 

However, this strange mottling seen in the leaves has been seen before and has not been connected to 

growth regulators. In rare instances it has been connected to possible mesotrione (component in 

Lumax, etc) carryover. This does not fit the location well, for in most accounts this carryover has 

occurred in the dry portions of the field.” 

Glenn Nice 

11. The OISC residue lab reported the following: 

Sample Number Sample Description Analysis Result 

2010-0177 Soil sample from railroad ROW Metsulfuron methyl 1.2 PPB 

Sulfometuron methyl 14 PPB 

2010-0178 Control soybean sample Metsulfuron methyl BDL 

Sulfometuron methyl BDL 

2010-0179 Soybean sample from field Metsulfuron methyl BDL 


2010-0180 Control corn sample Metsulfuron methyl BDL 


2010-0181 Corn sample from field Metsulfuron methyl BDL 


Fig 11: Residue results (BDL= below detection limits// PPB= part per billion) 

12. The residue results above indicated that the reportedly applied products were only found in the soil 

from the ROW, and no residue was found in the “suspected” corn or soybean sample. Based on the 

residue results and the PPDL results, a drift violation can not be proven at this time. However, non 

supervision of an unlicensed applicator did constitute a violation. 

Elizabeth C. Carter Date: November 29, 2010 


Disposition: Jetson Taylor was cited for twelve (12) counts of violation of section 65(6), specifically 355 

IAC 4-2-3, for failure to provide on-site supervision for non-licensed employees. A civil penalty in 

the amount of $1,500.00 (12 counts x $125.00 per count) was assessed. 

George N. Saxton Draft Date: December 7, 2010 

Compliance Officer Final Date: January 6, 2011 


Complainant: Dean Fitzpatrick 

4541 N. 700 W. 

Rochester, Indiana 46975 

574-892-6954 

CASE SUMMARY 

Target: Dungan Aerial Services 

Jeff Dungan Certified Applicator 

500 Airport Drive 

Connersville, Indiana 47331-0778 

765-827-1355 


Case #2010/0983 

1. On June 26, 2010, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received an aerial drift complaint 

through the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for the complainant Mr. 

Dean Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick alleged he was drifted on as well as his property. 

2. On June 28, 2010, I met with the complainant. He told me he was outside of his house when the aerial 

application was being made to the field south of his property. When he felt the mist on his face, he 

went inside his house. He reported no ill effects from the exposure. Later he checked the trees and 

plants on his property. He could see the droplets from the application on his truck, car and plants. 

(See photos below) 

Drivers' Side Car Window Tree Leaves 

3. I took various samples from the complainant, the complainant's property and the target field. Each 

sample was placed in a Mylar bag and marked appropriately for submission to the Purdue Residue 

Lab (PRL). (See list and diagram below) 

C-1 Complainant's hat 

SS-1 Swab Sample/ Complainant's house window 

SS-2 Swab Sample/ Complainant's Truck Mirror 

SS-3 Swab Sample/ Complainant's Car Window 

SS-4 Swab Sample/ Control Sample Complainant's House Rear Window 

P-1 Cucumber Plant/ Target Field 

P-2 Tree Leaves/ Complainant's Property

4. I found that the target field (cucumber field) was farmed by Hartung Brothers (708 Heartland Trail 

Suite 2000, Madison, Wisconsin). I spoke to Wayne Wells of Hartung Brothers. He told me that his 

company contracted Dungan Aerial Services to do an aerial pesticide application. 

5. I made contact with Jeff Dungan. Mr. Dungan confirmed that he made an aerial pesticide for the 

Hartung Brothers. I advised him he would be receiving a Pesticide Investigation Inquiry (PII) from 

OISC to be completed and returned to our office. 

6. OISC received the PII from Dungan Aerial Services. According to the PII, certified applicator Jeff 

Dungan made a pesticide application of Quadris (EPA# 100-1098; active ingredient: azoxystrobin), 

Manzate Pro Stik (EPA Reg. #352-449; active ingredient: mancozeb) and Tanos (EPA Reg. #352- 

604; active ingredients: famoxadone, cymoxanil) on June 21, 2010, at 9:45am. Dungan recorded the 

wind at 5 miles per hour from the south in a northerly direction. 

7. I checked the weather information at "www.wunderground.com" According to the web-site; the wind 

was blowing at 5 miles per hour from the south in a northerly direction toward the complainant's 

property. 

8. I received the lab results from PRL. (See table below) 

Sample # Sample Description Test Result 

20100210/SS-1 Swab sample/residence front window Azoxystrobin 6.47 UG/CM 2 

Cymoxanil 0.25 UG/CM 2 

20100211/ SS-2 Complainant's truck mirror Azoxystrobin 119 UG/CM 2 


20100212/ SS-3 Complainant's car window Azoxystrobin 227 UG/CM 



20100209/ SS-4 Control swab sample residence rear window Azoxystrobin 1.09 UG/CM 2 


20100213/ C-1 Complainant's hat Azoxystrobin CONF 

Cymoxanil CONF 

UG/CM 2 = Micrograms/square centimeter CONF= Confirmed 

9. The label for Manzate Pro-Stick reads, "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers 

or other persons, either directly or through drift". The label for Tanos reads, "Do not apply this 

product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift". The 

label for Quadris reads, "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other 

persons, either directly or through drift". 

Kevin W. Gibson Date: November 23, 2010 


Disposition: Jeff Dungan was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law for failure to follow label drift language. 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 2009/0729) and there was potential for human harm. 




Complainant: Larry Edwards 

4496 E. 350 S. 

Franklin, IN 4613 1 

317-738-3730 

CASE SUMMARY 

Applicator: Randy Taylor Certified Applicator 

Milhon Air, Inc. Licensed Business 

2151 Centerton Road 

Martinsville, IN 46151 

317-831-7464 

Case #2010/1037 

1. On July 8, 2010, Larry Edwards contacted the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) stating he was working on 

the roof of his shed when he felt a spray mist hit him from an aerial application to a corn field next to his property. 

Mr. Edwards stated he started having problems breathing and ultimately had to go to the hospital. 

2. On July 12, 2010, I spoke with Vic Bandini, from Milhon Air. Mr. Bandini stated that he was aware of the 

situation and Milhon Air had been in contact with Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bandini stated the applicator is Randy 

Taylor. Mr. Bandini emailed me the application report for the application made to the corn field. The report 

indicates that the application to the field designated as “Barrow” was done on July 8, 2010, between 8:30am and 

11:45am. See figure 1. The product used is Headline Fungicide, EPA Reg. #7969-186, active ingredient 

pyraclostrobin.

3. On July 13, 2010, I met with Mr. Edwards at his residence. Mr. Edwards stated he was repairing the roof of one of 

his sheds when he felt spray mist from an aerial application to the corn field west of his property. See figure 2. 

The shed is approximately 50 feet from the corn field. Mr. Edwards stated that he was still having breathing 

problems and he had a sore throat. Mr. Edwards stated he had been to the hospital and was scheduled for addition 

doctors’ visits. Mr. Edwards stated that he washed the clothes he was wearing when sprayed. 

Figure 2-“X”=Mr. Edward’s location 

4. On July 13, 2010, I collected the following samples to be analyzed by OISC’s Residue Lab: 

Lab sample # Sample #/ description 

20100258 C1/Control swab sample 

20100259 SW1/Swab sample from barn Mr. Edwards was working on 

20100260 Swab sample from old blue car in yard 

20100261 Swab sample from west side of large shed 

5. Weather data from Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com) indicates that the wind direction on July 8, 

2010, varied between 8:30am and 11:45am. The wind direction between 10:15am and 11:45am was primarily out 

to the south, south west, blowing toward Mr. Edward’s property. See figure 3. 

Figure 3-weather data 

6. The label for Headline fungicide states in part, “Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or 

other persons, either directly or through drift”, furthermore, “ Do not spray when conditions favor drift beyond 

area intended for application.” 

7. On September 3, 2010, OISC’s Residue Lab reported the following; 

Lab sample # Sample #/ description A.I. Result 

20100258 C1/Control swab sample BDL 

20100259 SW1/Swab sample from barn Mr. Edwards was working on pyraclostrobin CONF 

20100260 Swab sample from old blue car in yard pyraclostrobin CONF 

20100261 Swab sample from west side of large shed pyraclostrobin CONF 

BDL=Below Detection Limits CONF= Confirmed 

Paul J. Kelley Date: September 20, 2010 


Disposition: Walter Randy Taylor was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application 

Law for failure to follow label drift directions. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 was assessed for this violation. 

In addition, the license of Walter Randy Taylor was suspended for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days. 

Consideration was given to the fact that this was his third offense of similar violation (see 2008/0791 & 2010/1019). 

As of December 10, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid. The case was forwarded to the Office of the Indiana 

Attorney General for collection. 


Compliance Officer Final Date: December 10, 2010

Complainant: Jim Olesen 

1601 N. Deerfield Trace Court 

Yorktown, IN 47396 

765-730-7894 

CASE SUMMARY 

Applicator: Steve Schaler Licensed Applicator 

Business: Bi-State Helicopters, Inc. Licensed Business 

986 W. Stone Bluff Road 

Covington, IN 47987 

317-379-7887 


Case #2010/1068 

1. On 7-19-2010, Jim Olesen called the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) to report that his property was again 

drifted upon by an aerial applicator. Mr. Olesen filed a complaint in 2008 (Case#2008/0812) and had already 

determined that the application on 7-19-2010 was made by a Bi-State Helicopters Inc. plane. 

2. On 7-20-2010, I spoke with Mr. Olesen, who indicated he was home at the time of the application. He stated a 

plane had been spraying in the area during the afternoon and, at approximately 5pm, it made its first pass over the 

corn field along the back of his property. Mr. Olesen reportedly gathered some items from the yard, closed up the 

house and checked the Weather Channel for wind speeds. Winds were reportedly blowing 10mph from the 

northwest. He indicated he had acquired the tail number of the plane and followed up with the Federal Aviation 

Administration before contacting Bi-State Helicopters to try to stop the application. Mr. Olesen reported that he 

was later visited by Dan Linville, the “ground guy” for Bi-State Helicopters and Andy Clock, manager at 

Rydman & Fox, who had contracted the applications. 

3. On 7-21-2010, I went to the Olesen home in a newer sub-division on the east side of County Road 800W in 

Delaware County. The Olesen’s large, open back yard is bordered by the target field to the north. Mr. Olesen 

stated the pilot’s first swath was west-to-east along the south edge of the field; he then worked his way to the 

north, eventually spraying another field on the west side of CR800W. Mr. Olesen stated that for several swaths, 

the applicator appeared to be spraying fields on both sides of the road, seemingly without shutting off the nozzles. 

He stated that a friend, Megan Tagler, arrived at the house while the applications were being made and mentioned 

she had to use her windshield wipers while driving south on CR800W. Mr. Olesen indicated it had not rained 

and theorized it might be overspray. I photographed the site, documenting the Olesen property and the proximity 

of the field. Mr. Olesen had bagged the shirts he and his wife were wearing in the yard while the application was 

being made. I collected the shirts and several swab samples from the back yard of the property. I collected one 

from a window on the north side of the house (approx. 300 feet from the target field), one from a toy truck which 

was reportedly near the swing set during the application, one from the swing set (approx. 175 feet from the target 

field) and one from a tree stake supporting a fruit tree (approx. 90 feet from the target field). 

Fig.1 Target field and Olesen property from west Fig.2 Olesen back yard and target field from patio

4. I met with Mrs. Tagler at her home and explained the incident and the complaint. Mrs. Tagler allowed me to 

collect a swab sample from the windshield of her van, which she had driven to the Olesens’ home on 7-19-2010. 

All samples were submitted to the OISC residue lab for analysis. 

5. I met with Mr. Clock at the Rydman & Fox facility. He indicated that the corn fields sprayed by Bi-State 

Helicopters, on both sides of CR800W near the Olesen property, are farmed by Dale Lee. He provided aerial 

photos of the fields. 

6. I spoke to account manager, Rick Farrell, and later to owner, Bill Rice, at Bi-State Helicopters, and informed 

them of the complaint. Applicator Steve Schaler later provided records indicating he sprayed several fields in the 

area, including those near the Olesen property, with Headline fungicide (EPA Reg. #7969-186), active ingredient 

pyraclostrobin, from 4pm-7pm on 7-19-2010. He reported that winds were out of the northwest at 5-7mph during 

the applications. Recorded wind data from Muncie, Indiana, indicated winds were out of the west-northwest at 

4.6mph at 5:53pm. No data was recorded around 5pm; the previous recording indicated winds were from the 

northwest at 10.4mph, gusting to 16.1mph, at 3:53pm, an hour prior to the reported start time of the application 

behind the Olesen property. 

7. The OISC residue lab analyzed for pyraclostrobin and reported the following: 

Sample#1068-1 Control swab Below Detection Limits 

Sample#1068-2 Complainants’ shirts Confirmed 

Sample#1068-3 Swab from house window 0.0019 micrograms per 100 sq. cm 

Sample#1068-4 Swab from toy truck 0.061 micrograms per 100 sq. cm 

Sample#1068-5 Swab from swing set Confirmed 

Sample#1068-6 Swab from tree stake Confirmed 

Sample#1068-7 Swab from van window 0.345 micrograms per 100 sq. cm 

8. The Headline label reads, in part, “Do not apply under circumstances where possible drift to unprotected 

persons, to food, forage, or other plantings that might be damaged, or crops thereof rendered unfit for 

sale, use or consumption can occur . . . DO NOT apply this product in a way that will contact workers or 

other persons either directly or through drift.” 

Andrew R. Roth Date: December 6, 2010 


Disposition: Steve Schaler was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law 

for failure to follow label drift directions. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this 

violation. Consideration was given to the fact that there was potential for human harm and this was his 

second offense of similar nature (see 2007/0501). 




CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Business: Twilight Golf Course 

5316 E. Highway 62 

Jeffersonville, IN 47130 

812-288-8871 

Case #2010/1127 

1. On October 27, 2009, I met with Mrs. Mary Richardson, the owner at Twilight Golf Course. I discussed with Mrs. 

Richardson the Applicator Certification and Licensing at Golf Courses Rule that went into effect August 1, 2009. I explained 

to her the requirements of this new rule. After a very lengthy conversation, Mrs. Richardson stated, “There is too much 

government and I won’t adhere.” I left Mrs. Richardson all of the paperwork explaining the rule. 

2. On October 6, 2010, I met with Mrs. Richardson at Twilight Golf Course. From the moment I walked in, Mrs. Richardson 

was agitated. I asked to see her pesticide application records for the golf course. She showed me the sheet pictured below. 

Mrs. Richardson acknowledged that she had made an application of “23-3-5 Fert + Fung VIII” on September 3, 2010. 

Fig 1: Photo of records 

I asked her if she had an applicator’s license from the OISC, and she said no. She then proceeded to call me an inappropriate 

name. Later in the conversation, Mrs. Richardson stated that her daughter, Mrs. Vicki Tieri, was going to be the certified 

applicator for the course. She got Mrs. Tieri on the phone for me. Mrs. Tieri stated that she had taken the CORE test, but still 

needed to retake the 3b test. I informed Mrs. Tieri and Mrs. Richardson that no one could make any pesticide applications at 

the golf course until the course met the requirements of the new rule. I then issued Mrs. Richardson an Action Order to cease 

all applications until someone became licensed. I also informed her of the record keeping requirement. 

Elizabeth C. Carter Date: October 7, 2010 


Disposition: Twilight Golf Course was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, 

specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for failure to keep mandatory golf course pesticide application records. 

Twilight Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying 

pesticides to a golf course without having a pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this 

violation. 


Compliance Officer Second Draft Date: November 12, 2010 


CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Applicator: Indian Lakes Golf Course New Mailing Address: 

13137 N. Spades Lane 7234 State Road 46 E. 

Sunman, IN 47041 Batesville, IN 47006 

812-623-GOLF 812-623-4653 

Case #2010/1128 

1. On October 26, 2009, I met with Mr. Brett Smith at Indian Lakes Golf Course. I discussed 

with Mr. Smith the Applicator Certification and Licensing at Golf Courses Rule that went 

into effect August 1, 2009. I explained to him the requirements of this new rule. I also 

informed him that during this first year, the OISC provided compliance assistance, but after 

one year enforcement began. 

2. On September 8, 2010, I met with Mr. Smith at Indian Lakes Golf Course. I asked to see Mr. 

Smith’s pesticide application records for the golf course. The records listed the following 

applications made by Mr. Smith: 

• August 1, 2010- Headway (Syngenta) applied on greens at 1oz (total 64 oz) to treat 

brown patch at 6:45 AM. 

• August 11, 2010 – Seven (Prokoz) applied on #2 green only at 7:05 AM. 

I asked Mr. Smith if he had an applicator’s license from the OISC, and he said no. I informed 

him that he could not make any pesticide applications at the golf course until he met the 

requirements of the new rule. I then issued Mr. Smith an Action Order to cease all 

applications until he became licensed. 

Elizabeth C. Carter Date: September 10, 2010 


Disposition: Indian Lakes Golf Course was cited for 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 an Indiana pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of 

$250.00 was assessed for this violation. 


Compliance Officer 2nd Draft Date: November 11, 2010 


CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Business: Champions Pointe Golf Club 

1820 Champions Club Lane 

Henryville, IN 47126 

812-294-1800 

Case #2010/1133 

1. On November 16, 2009, I met with Mr. Scott Sieckert, the golf superintendent at Champions 

Pointe Golf Club. I discussed with Mr. Sieckert the Applicator Certification and Licensing 

at Golf Courses Rule that went into effect August 1, 2009. I explained to him the 

requirements of this new rule. I also informed him that during this first year, the OISC 

provided compliance assistance, but after one year enforcement began. 

2. On October 6, 2010, I met with Mr. Sieckert at Champions Pointe Golf Club. I asked to see 

Mr. Sieckert’s pesticide application records for the golf course. According to the records 

supplied, Mr. John Emerson applied Tenacity to the roughs on September 14, 2010. The 

records contained all the required elements. 

I then asked Mr. Sieckert if anyone at the course had an applicator’s license from the OISC, 

and he said, “No.” I informed him that no one could make any pesticide applications at the 

golf course until the course complied with the new rule. I then issued Mr. Sieckert an Action 

Order to cease all applications until they complied. 

Elizabeth C. Carter Date: October 7, 2010 


Disposition: Champion Pointe Golf Club was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana 

Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a 

pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 



CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Business: Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course 

68695 S. State Road 3 

Greensburg, IN 47240 

812-591-4100 

Case #2010/1135 

1. On April 21, 2009, I performed a routine inspection at Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course in Greensburg, Indiana. I spoke with 

Mr. Toby Vannatta, the superintendent at the course. During my inspection, I told Mr. Vannatta about the proposed golf 

course rule and the potential requirement that each golf course would need a certified applicator. Mr. Vannatta proceeded to 

show me his private applicator credential. I told him his private applicator’s license would not work, and that he would need 

a 3b license instead. 

2. On October 29, 2009, I met with Ms. Laurie Hasting, an employee at Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course. Ms. Hasting stated 

that Mr. Vannatta was not available. I explained to Ms. Hasting the requirements of the Applicator Certification and 

Licensing at Golf Courses Rule that went into effect August 1, 2009. I also gave her a handout explaining the new rule and 

asked her to give this information to Mr. Vannatta and have him call me if he had questions. 

3. On September 27, 2010, I met with Mr. Vannatta at Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course. I asked to see Mr. Vannatta’s pesticide 

application records for the golf course. Mr. Vannatta showed me his 2010 calendar that listed the following application on 

September 1, 2010: 

• 5 LB CLT 825, 3 LB Teremec, and 1 PT Propiconazol 

I then asked to physically see the pesticides Mr. Vannatta had applied that day. Mr. Vannatta took me to his shop where he 

showed me a jug of CLT 825 (EPA Reg. #66222-149-73220, AI: chlorothalonil) and Teremec SP (EPA Reg. #2217-692, AI: 

chloroneb). I asked to see the propiconazol, but Mr. Vannatta said he must have finished the jug and threw it away. I then 

showed Mr. Vannatta the record keeping requirements. I reviewed with him how to fill out the records completely. 

I then asked Mr. Vannatta if he had an applicator’s license from the OISC, and he said, “No.” Mr. Vannatta stated he took 

the applicator test but failed. Additionally, he expressed to me that he thought the new rule was overly burdensome and cost 

prohibitive. 

I informed Mr. Vannatta that neither he nor any of the other staff could make any pesticide applications at the golf course 

until they met the requirements of the new rule. I then issued Mr. Vannatta an Action Order to cease all applications until he 

or one of his staff became licensed. Mr. Vannatta refused to sign the Action Order. 



Disposition: Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for failure to keep mandatory golf course pesticide application records. 

Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for 

applying pesticides to a golf course without having a pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for 

this violation. 

As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Wyaloosing Creek Golf Course. The case was forwarded for 

collection. 



CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Applicator: Country View Golf Course 

7211 Hyland Road 

Guilford, IN 47022 

812-576-5000 

Case #2010/1137 

1. On August 31, 2009, I met with Ms. Deanna Biddle, the manager at Country View Golf Course. Ms. Biddle stated that 

the owner, Mr. Terry Zimmer, was not available. I explained to Ms. Biddle the requirements of the Applicator 

Certification and Licensing at Golf Courses Rule. I also gave her a handout explaining the new rule and asked her to 

please give this information to Mr. Zimmer. 

2. On September 27, 2010, I met with Mr. Zimmer at Country View Golf Course. I asked to see Mr. Zimmer’s pesticide 

application records for the golf course. Mr. Zimmer stated he did not keep any written records of applications. He 

then said he made an application 2 weeks ago Friday (September 17, 2010). Mr. Zimmer applied Lesco Spectator 

(EPA Reg. #79676-21, AI: Propiconazole) and Lesco Manicure 6 FL (EPA Reg. #60063-7-10404, AI: Chlorothalonil). 

Mr. Zimmer then proceeded to show me the containers of the pesticides he applied. Please see the figure below. 

Fig 1: Pesticides applied by Mr. Zimmer 

I then asked Mr. Zimmer if he had an applicator’s license from the OISC, and he said no. I informed him that neither 

he nor any of the other staff could make any pesticide applications at the golf course until they met the requirements of 

the new rule. I also informed Mr. Zimmer that he was required to keep written records of all applications at the course. 

I then issued Mr. Zimmer an Action Order to cease all applications until he or one of his staff became licensed. 



Disposition: Country View Golf Course was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 


Country View Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for 

applying pesticides to a golf course without having a pesticide license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was 




CASE SUMMARY 



West Lafayette, IN 47907 

800-893-6637 

Business: Maplewood Golf Club 

Applicator: JR Norris Not Licensed 

4261 E. CR 700 S. 

Muncie, IN 47302 

765-284-8007 

Case #2010/1146 

1. On 9-9-2010, I went to Maplewood Golf Club to perform a follow-up golf course inspection. The 

course was originally inspected 11-5-2009. A check of OISC records indicated a certified 

applicator was not yet associated with Maplewood Golf Club. 

2. I met with Superintendent JR Norris. Mr. Norris indicated he was not yet certified but stated he 

was planning to obtain his certification this fall. He indicated that he did pass the Core exam in 

August of this year, but he has not yet attempted the Category 3b exam. 

3. I then asked Mr. Norris to see his pesticide application records. The records were complete, 

containing all the required information, and indicated Mr. Norris made a fungicide application at 

the golf course after the 8-1-2010, licensing compliance date. Specifically, he applied Mainsail 

(EPA Reg. #72112-6), active ingredient chlorothalonil, on 8-16-2010. 

4. Mr. Norris was issued an Action Order prohibiting further pesticide applications at the course until 

the licensing or supervision requirements are met. I again informed Mr. Norris of his options for 

coming into compliance. He indicated he would cease applications until he becomes certified. 

Andrew R. Roth Date: November 17, 2010 


Disposition: Maplewood Golf Club was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide 

Use and Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a pesticide 




CASE SUMMARY 

Complainant: Office of Indiana State Chemist 



800-893-6637 

Target: Crawfordsville Municipal Golf Course 

1000 E. South Boulevard 

Crawfordsville, Indiana 46052 

765-364-5171 

Case #2010/1161 

1. On September 8, 2009, an initial Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) Golf Course Rule 

inspection was conducted at the Crawfordsville Municipal Golf Course by Agent Elizabeth 

Carter. She spoke to the golf course superintendent Terry Kendricks. At that time Agent 

Carter determined the golf course was making pesticide applications without a certified 

applicator on staff as required by the Golf Course Rule. The owner was told he had until 

August 1, 2010. to come into compliance or he would be in violation. 

2. September 3, 2010, I performed a follow-up inspection at Crawfordsville Municipal Golf 

Course regarding compliance with the Golf Course Rule. I spoke to Terry Kendricks. I asked 

to review his application records. His application records indicated that he made a pesticide 

application of ProVaunt Insecticide (EPA Reg. #352-716 active ingredient: indoxacarb) on 

August 2, 2010. I advised Mr. Kendricks that he was in violation of the OISC Golf Course 

Rule. I issued an "Action Order" to Mr. Kendricks. I advised him he would be in violation if 

he made another pesticide application without obtaining his applicator license. 

Kevin W. Gibson Date: September 20, 2010 


Disposition: Crawfordsville Municipal Golf Course was cited for 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 

$250.00 was assessed. 


Compliance Officer Final Date: November 12, 2010




Applicator: Christmas Lake Golf Club 

P. O. Box 81 

Highway 245 South 

Santa Claus, IN 47579 

812-812-544-2255 

Kevin Laswell 

CASE SUMMARY 

Case #2010/1166 

1. On October 28, 2010, I went to the Christmas Lake Golf Club to complete a follow-up inspection from an 

inspection done on September 16, 2009. A check of the OISC data base on August 20, 2010, indicated 

that the Christmas Lake Golf Club still did not have a certified applicator associated with this course. 

2. I met with Grounds Superintendent, Kevin Laswell. Mr. Laswell indicated that he had taken and passed the 

core and Category 3b test and recently submitted an application for a license. Another check of OISC 

records indicated that Mr. Laswell had passed his 3b test on August 20, 2010, and an application for a 

license was received in October. I reviewed the records being kept by Mr. Laswell from August 1, 2010 to 

the date of inspection. A copy of a pesticide application made by Mr. Laswell on August 9, 2010, was 

obtained. 

3. The application records being kept by Mr. Laswell failed to contain the following required information: 

• Name of Applicator 

• Time 

• Target Pest 

• Product EPA # 

• Manufacturer 

4. The application record for the August 9, 2010, indicated that Disarm 480 SC Fungicide (EPA Reg. # 

66330-64; Active Ingredient: fluoxastrobin) had been applied. This application was completed after the 

required licensing compliance date of August 1, 2010, and prior to Mr. Laswell receiving his license in 

October 2010. 

Scott M. Farris Date: October 28, 2010 


Disposition: Christmas Lake Golf Club was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for failure to keep mandatory pesticide application records. 

Christmas Lake Golf Club was cited for 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 pesticide license. A 








CASE SUMMARY 

Applicator: Mark’s Par 3 

2401 N. Chamberland Street 

Terre Haute, IN 47805 

812-877-1467 

Kenneth Walsh (unlicensed applicator) 


Case #2010/1173 

1. On October 12, 2010, I went to the Mark’s Par 3 Golf Course to complete a follow-up inspection from an inspection 

done on December 2, 2009. A check of the OISC data base indicated that the Mark’s Par 3 Golf Course did not have a 

certified applicator associated with this course until September 14, 2010. 

2. I met with Grounds Superintendent, Kenneth Walsh. Mr. Walsh indicated that he had taken the core test, but had not 

taken the Category 3b test yet. Mr. Walsh informed me that Donald Alumbaugh from another local golf course had 

become the certified applicator for Mark’s Par 3 in September of this year. Mr. Walsh stated that he had made a few 

pesticide applications between August 1, 2010 and the time he became supervised by Mr. Alumbaugh in September. 

Mr. Walsh indicated that he still planned to receive his 3b certification during the winter months. 

3. I also completed a review of the application records being kept by Mr. Walsh. The records prior to September 14, 

2010 were missing the following required information: 

• Name of Applicator 

• Time 

• Area Treated 


• Product EPA # 


4. The application records indicated that an application of Headway Fungicide (EPA Reg. #100-1216; Active Ingredient: 

azoxystrobin) was applied on August 2, 2010. This application was completed after the required licensing compliance 

date of August 1, 2010. 

Scott M. Farris Date: October 14, 2010 


Disposition: Mark’s Par 3 Golf Course was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 


Mark’s Par 3 Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for 








Applicator: Jim Metz 

Oak Ridge GC 

9784 N. CR 300 E. 

Brazil, IN 47834 

812-446-4653 

CASE SUMMARY 

Case #2010/1181 

1. On October 8, 2010, I went to the Oak Ridge Golf Course to complete a follow-up inspection from an inspection done 

on March 19, 2010. A check of the OISC data base indicated that the Oak Ridge Golf Course still did not have a 

certified applicator associated with this course. 

2. I met with Superintendent/Owner, Jim Metz. Mr. Metz indicated that he and his son have the study material but have 

not followed through with getting licensed. Mr. Metz was again informed that he is required to be certified in Category 

3b to apply pesticides at the golf course. Mr. Metz was issued an Action Order prohibiting any further applications of 

pesticides at the course until the licensing requirements are met. 

3. I also completed a review of the application records being kept by Mr. Metz. Mr. Metz stated he started out putting 

application information on the forms he was given on March 19, 2010, but has reverted back to writing on a calendar. 

See figure 1. 

Figure 1-August 11, 2010, record keeping 

4. The application records indicated that an application was made on August 11, 2010. This application was completed 

after the required licensing compliance date of August 1, 2010. 

Paul J. Kelley Date: October 8, 2010 


Disposition: Oak Ridge Golf Course was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 


Oak Ridge Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for 





CASE SUMMARY 

Complainant: Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) 



800-893-6637 

Applicator: Mink Lake Golf Course 

Don Sella 

636 N. Calumet 

Valparaiso, IN 46383 

219-462-2585 

Case #2010/1185 

1. On September 20, 2010, I conducted an inspection at the above facility as a follow up to an 

inspection that was done on March 31, 2010. During the March 31, 2010, inspection the above 

named facility and Mr. Sella were advised that as of August 1, 2010, they would have to have a 

certified applicator on staff and keep required records of all pesticide applications or they would 

be in violation of the OISC Golf Course Rule. 

2. During my visit on September 20, 2010, I met with Mr. Sella and advised him that the OISC data 

base did not indicate that he or anyone else was certified to apply pesticides for Mink Lake GC. 

Mr. Sella admitted that he had not gotten his certification. He also advised that he had made an 

application of Mainsail WDG fungicide (EPA Reg. #72112-5) to the course since August 1, 2010. 

When asked about the records for this or any other application, Mr. Sella advised that the only 

record he keeps is on a calendar where he writes what he applied to either greens or fairways. 

3. I then issued an “Action Order” to the Mink Lake GC for them to cease any and all pesticide 

applications until such time as they come into compliance with the OISC Golf Course Rule. 

Kevin W. Neal Date: September 28, 2010 


DISPOSITION: Mink Lake Golf Course was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana 

Pesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for failure to keep mandatory records 

for pesticide applications to a golf course. 

Mink Lake Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law for applying pesticides to a golf course without having a licensed pesticide applicator. 

A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 

As of December 10, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid. The case was forwarded to collections. 



CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Applicator: Lugene Links 

Gene Barry 

P. O. Box 236 

8687 N. 300 W. 

Lake Village, IN 46349 

219-992-3337 

Case #2010/1188 

1. On October 13, 2010, I conducted an inspection at the above facility as a follow up to an 

inspection that was done on December 14, 2009. During the December 14, 2009 inspection, 

the above named facility and Mr. Barry were advised that as of August 1, 2010, they would 

have to have a certified applicator on staff and keep required records of all pesticide 

applications or they would be in violation of the Indiana Golf Course Rule. 

2. During my visit on October 13, 2010, I met with Mr. Barry and advised him that the OISC 

data base did not indicate that he or anyone else was certified to apply pesticides for Lugene 

Links. Mr. Barry admitted that no one had become certified on staff. He also advised that the 

course had made an application of some fungicide to the course since August 1, 2010. When 

asked about the records for this or any other application Mr. Barry provided me with a copy 

of what they have been using to keep pesticide application records. 

3. I then issued an “Action Order” to the Lugene Links for them to cease any and all pesticide 


Kevin W. Neal Date: November 3, 2010 


DISPOSITION: Lugene Links was cited for 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 $250.00 was 




CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Applicator: Parke County Golf Course 

Derrick Bridge 

1640 N. Hwy 41 

Rockville, IN 47872 

765-569-3556 

Case #2010/1193 

1. On September 13, 2010, I conducted an inspection at the above facility as a follow up to an inspection 

that was done on August 25, 2009. During the August 25, 2009, inspection the above named facility 

and Mr. Bridge were advised that as of August 1, 2010, they would have to have a certified applicator 

on staff and keep required records of all pesticide applications or they would be in violation of the 

OISC Golf Course Rule. 

2. During my visit on September 13, 2010, I met with Ms. Gwendolyn Teneyuca, Pro Shop Manager, 

who connected me with Mr. Bridge via telephone as he was not there at the time of my visit. I advised 

him that the OISC data base did not indicate that he or anyone else was certified to apply pesticides 

for Parke County Golf Course. Mr. Bridge admitted that he had not gotten his certification. He also 

advised that he had made an application of Daconil fungicide on September 9, 2010, to the course. 

When asked about the records for this or any other application Mr. Bridge advised that he does keep 

records of his applications and that he would send a copy of those records to me. 

3. I then issued an “Action Order” to the Parke County GC for them to cease any and all pesticide 


Kevin W. Neal Date: September 28, 2010 


DISPOSITION: Parke County Golf Course was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide 

Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-2, for applying pesticides for hire without having a 

licensed pesticide applicator. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. 



CASE SUMMARY 

Complainant: Mike Coil 

Better Business Bureau of Northern Indiana 

4011 Parnell Avenue 

Ft. Wayne, IN 46805 

260-423-4433 

Owner: Benjamin Byerline Not Licensed 

Business: Property Maintenance Not Licensed 

4905 Galway Drive 

Ft. Wayne, IN 46815 

260-446-6414 


Case #2010/1201 

1. On 8-18-2010, a media alert was forwarded to the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) 

indicating Property Maintenance billed consumers in Ft. Wayne, IN for pesticide applications 

allegedly made to their properties. The Better Business Bureau of Northern Indiana (BBB) 

issued the alert after receiving complaints from several consumers who indicated they had not 

contracted services from the company. Property Maintenance is not a licensed Indiana pesticide 

business. 

2. On 8-19-2010, I spoke with BBB President, Mike Coil, at the Ft. Wayne office. Mr. Coil 

indicated the BBB received numerous phone calls from homeowners who found a letter and a 

hand-written bill of sale at their mailboxes. Mr. Coil also reported that the BBB received copies 

of the letter and the bill of sale from two homeowners. 

3. On 8-19-2010, I went to the BBB office at the above listed address. Mr. Coil was in a meeting, 

so I spoke with Communications Director Marjorie Stephens. She indicated that the callers who 

contacted the BBB regarding Property Maintenance reported that they did not order the pest 

control services nor had they heard of the company. Ms. Stephens provided copies of the 

correspondence the BBB received from two homeowners in the Wyndemere subdivision. Both 

homeowners, Matt Momper and Larry Piano, forwarded copies of the following: 

• A hand-written envelope addressed to “Resident” 

• A typed cover letter which instructed the recipient to “Make Check Payable To: Property 

Maintenance” and read, “Dear Resident, Your home was sprayed today with pest 

control. It is animal Friendly. The spray will stop the following insects: ants, carpenter 

ants, termites, spiders, and other small insects from entering your home. The following 

application will last a period of ten months. However if dead insects begin to appear a 

second application is needed at a discount price.” 

• A hand-written BILL OF SALE dated 8-9-10 for “Pest Control” at a price of $84.94 plus 

$5.94 tax for a total of $90.89.

4. Mr. Piano’s FAX to the BBB indicated his “documents” were found in his newspaper box on 8- 

13-2010 and that the adjoining neighbors’ paper boxes each had a similar envelope. He indicated 

he “did not hire this firm to do pest control, and in fact have had no communication with them.” 

I later spoke with Mrs. Piano who reported that she did not think an application had been made. 

5. I spoke with Matt Momper, a former BBB Board Member, who stated that he assumed the bill 

was part of a scam and promptly filed a complaint with the BBB. Mr. Momper stated that he left 

a message at Property Maintenance and eventually did get a call back from someone identifying 

himself as “Ben”. 

6. After leaving several voice mail messages at Property Maintenance, I finally reached Benjamin 

Byerline and informed him of the complaint. Mr. Byerline explained that his company arranges a 

variety of services for homeowners, including lawn maintenance, pool closings and pest control 

services. He explained that his customer list (approximately 200 homeowners) and his potentialcustomer 

list (approximately 800 homeowners) were combined into one list by mistake. He 

further explained that when the bills for pest control customers were prepared, the entire 

‘combined list’ was used. Thus, every homeowner on the combined list received a hand-written 

bill for pest control services. Mr. Byerline stated he was drafting a letter which explained the 

situation for all homeowners who received a bill by mistake. I explained that billing for pest 

control services without specifying that the applications are performed by a licensed company 

implies his company is making the applications and his company is not licensed. Mr. Byerline 

indicated that nothing was applied to the properties of the potential customers and that no money 

was received from any of them. He indicated that I could e-mail him and he would provide 

anything the OISC needed to clear up the situation. He also stated he had explained the situation 

to the BBB. 

7. I requested a written statement from Mr. Byerline, giving him the opportunity to clarify how the 

additional 800 hand-written bills were delivered to homeowners. Via e-mail correspondence, Mr. 

Byerline indicated he would not commit anything to writing. When I explained the licensing 

requirements in detail, Mr. Byerline again stated that no money switched hands and no services 

were provided. 



Disposition: Property Maintenance was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide 

Use and Application Law for professing to be in the business of applying pesticides for hire 

without having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 


In addition, the information was forwarded to the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office for criminal 

review. 

As of December 27, 2010, the civil penalty had not been paid by Property Maintenance. The 

case was forwarded for collection. 




CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Applicator: Bryce Rector Not Licensed 

Owner: Mike Armstrong Not Licensed 

Business: A & E Environmental Not Licensed 

8401 Smithfield Pike 

Selma, IN 47383 

317-797-6591 

Case #2010/1222 

1. On 8-18-2010, I observed an individual spraying weeds at a Speedway gas station in Muncie, Indiana. 

The applicator was using a pump-type sprayer to spray weeds in cracks in the sidewalks and pavement 

after mowing the grass at the property. 

2. At the end of the application, I introduced myself to applicator Bryce Rector and initiated a routine 

pesticide use inspection. When I asked to see Mr. Rector’s applicator license, he stated that he did not 

have one. He indicated that he works for A & E Environmental, a company contracted to do 

environmental sampling and analysis for Speedway stores. Mr. Rector stated that A & E Environmental 

got the contract for outdoor maintenance for the stores. He stated he has done the mowing and weed 

control this year for a summer job. Mr. Rector stated Mike Armstrong owns the business. I informed Mr. 

Rector that any pesticide application done for-hire requires the applicator and business to be licensed. I 

instructed him to cease making applications until he and the business are properly licensed. Mr. Rector 

then showed me a container of Eliminator Weed & Grass Concentrate (EPA Reg. #67760-49-9688) that he 

had been spraying at the properties. 

3. I later spoke with Mr. Armstrong. He indicated he did not know he needed a license to spray products that 

you can buy at the hardware store. I explained to Mr. Armstrong that a license is required when for-hire 

pesticide applications are made to the property of another. I explained to Mr. Armstrong how to obtain an 

Indiana pesticide business license. During our discussion, I learned that Mr. Rector has been spraying 

weeds in landscape beds and in sidewalk and pavement cracks at 18 Speedway properties as needed over 

the course of the summer. I also learned that no records are kept for the applications. 



Disposition: A&E Environmental 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 




Complainant: Tim Gray 

5155 E. Main Street 

Carmel, Indiana 46033 

317-610-1135 

CASE SUMMARY 

Target: Alfredo Zacarias Unlicensed 

Gary Reinking Licensed supervisor 

Mainscape Licensed 

13418 Britton Park Road 

Fishers, Indiana 46038 

317-577-3155 


Case #2011/0037 

1. On October 11, 2010, the Office of Indiana State Chemist Office (OISC) received a complaint from 

Mr. Tim Gray. Mr. Gray reported that soon after Mainscape made an application of Roundup to a 

fence row adjacent to his property, large spruce trees bordering the application site began to shed their 

needles and die. Mr. Gray stated that he believed the Roundup application was responsible for the 

death of his spruce trees. 

2. On October 15, 2010, I met with the complainant at his home. Mr. Gray took me to the south side of 

his property where I observed thirty-eight spruce trees fifteen to twenty feet high that were in various 

stages of defoliation. The defoliation was worse on the south side of the trees and near the bottom of 

the trees. Most of the trees still had needles present near their tops. A fence row runs along the entire 

south side of the Gray property. There were dead weeds present in the fence row and it appeared the 

weeds had been sprayed with a herbicide. The fence row was approximately eight to ten feet from the 

Gray spruce trees. It should be noted that a similar apparently healthy planting of spruce trees runs 

along the east edge of the Gray property line (see photos below). I took a vegetation sample for 

submission to the Purdue Plant and Pest Diagnostic Laboratory (PPPDL) and I also took needles from 

the affected spruce trees for analysis in the OISC residue laboratory. 

Figure 1- east planting of spruce on Gray property Figure 2- looking west along south fence line

Figure 3- looking east along south planting of spruces Figure 4- dead weeds in fence row 

3. According to information provided by Mainscape, Alfredo Zacarias applied Roundup Quik Pro (EPA 

Reg. #524-535, active ingredient of glyphosate) to the fence row that runs along the south side of the 

Gray property on July 26, 2010 between 10:36 am and 11:38 am. The application was made with a 

backpack sprayer to control weeds in the fence row. It should be noted that Mr. Zacarias failed to 

renew his registered technician credential for 2010 and was therefore neither a certified applicator nor 

a registered technician at the time of the application. According to Mr. Zacarias certified supervisor, 

Gary Reinking, Mr. Zacarias was working alone on the day of the application and did not have on-site 

supervision. 

4. According to the PPPDL report, no diseases were detected in the sample. The report also stated, 

“These spruces present symptoms of generalized needle drop. It would appear that some of the 

needle thinning is probably due to diminishing light levels in the interior of the planting. However, 

the loss of foliage on the south, sunlit, outside of the planting is most likely due to a different causal 

factor. It is reported that glyphosate herbicide was applied to the adjacent fence line and it is evident 

that other plants are dead there. Direct exposure to glyphosate by foliage on spruce can result in 

needle drop such has been observed here. With glyphosate, there is usually a stage of yellowing 

preceding the needle drop and that is not evident here. However, a period of time passed before the 

needle drop was observed following the possible exposure incident. It is reasonable to conclude that 

some of the needle drop on the spruces adjacent to the fence line may be due to glyphosate exposure. 

There is no readily evident pattern of damage however, and more information about the nature of the 

herbicide application might be helpful.” 

5. Neither glyphosate nor AMPA (a breakdown product of glyphosate) were detected in the spruce 

needles that were submitted to the OISC residue laboratory. 

Joseph D. Becovitz Date: December 20, 2010 


DISPOSITION: Although no violation could be documented regarding the initial complaint of drift onto 

the Gray spruce trees; Mainscape and Gary Reinking were cited for violation of section 65(6) of the 

Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to properly supervise a non-licensed employee. 








CASE SUMMARY 

Applicator: Country Oaks Golf Club 

5064 E. US Hwy. 50 

Montgomery, IN 47558 

812-485-3300 

Max Nickless unlicensed applicator 


Case # 2011/0151 

1. On November 3, 2010, I went to the Country Oaks Golf Club to conduct an inspection after information was 

received that this golf course may not have a certified applicator. A check of the OISC database did not list a 

certified applicator for this course. 

2. I met with Grounds Superintendent, Max Nickless. Mr. Nickless indicated that he had not passed the core or 

Category 3b test yet, but was planning on attending the next 3b training session. Mr. Nickless indicated that the 

course had lost their certified applicator in June of 2010 and that he had been making the applications since that 

time. Mr. Nickless was issued an Action Order prohibiting any further applications of pesticides at the course 

until the licensing requirements are met. 

3. I also completed a review of the application records being kept by Mr. Nickless. The records were missing the 

following required information: 


• Time of application 


4. The application records indicated that an application of Concert Fungicide (EPA Reg. #100-1192; active 

ingredients: propiconazole & chlorothalonil) and Trimmit SC (EPA Reg. #100-1014; active ingredient: 

paclobutrazol) was applied on October 28, 2010. This application was completed after the required licensing 

compliance date of August 1, 2010. 

Scott M. Farris Date: November 3, 2010 


Disposition: Country Oaks Golf Club was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-15-4, for failure to keep mandatory application records. 

Country Oaks Golf Club was cited for 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. 




CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Applicator: Monroe Pest Control 

3220 West Old Ridge Road 

Hobart, IN 46342 

219-942-2161 


Case #2011/0179 

1. On November 30, 2010 I conducted a termite pre-construction treatment notification (pre-treat) inspection at the above 

named facility. Upon my arrival I identified myself to Mr. Marc Willie, General Manager for Monroe Pest Control, and 

advised him that I would like to see any and all paperwork he has with regard to termite pre-treats Monroe Pest control 

had done in the last two years. 

2. I went on to advise that with that paperwork there should be a confirmation number that would have been received 

from OISC after Monroe Pest Control had notified OISC of the pre-treat. Mr. Willie then told me that there would not 

be any confirmation numbers as he was sure they had not made the proper notification and stated that he thought the 

notification process did not take affect until March of 2010. I assured him that was not the case and that the 

notifications were to have commenced at the beginning of 2009. 

3. Mr. Willie then produced records for twelve (12) pre-treats that Monroe Pest Control has done since the beginning of 

2009 and they are as follows: 

DATE CUSTOMER LOCATION PRODUCT APPLICATOR RECORDS 

2/12/2009 

3/30/2009 

3/19/2009 

4/1/2009 

4/6/2009 

4/13/2009 

Coolman 

Communities 

L.I. Combs & 

Sons, Inc. 

Combs & Sons 

Coolman 

Combs & Sons 

Combs & Sons 

1356 Byfield 

Lot 108 

Valparaiso, IN 

lots on Main, 

Deodor and 

Pulaski 

E. Chicago, IN 

lots on Main, 

Deodor and 

Pulaski 


64 Prarie Pkwy 

Lot 1 


lots on Main, 

Deodor and 

Pulaski 


lots on Main, 

Deodor and 

Pulaski 


MasterLine 

Termidor 

Termidor 

Termidor 

Termidor 

Termidor 

Elvis Figueroa 

RT 

Howard Shults 

RT 

Howard Shults 

RT 

Howard Shults 

RT 


RT 


RT 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

Graph 

Diagram 

Dimensions 

NO 

Graph 

Diagram 

Dimensions

4/20/2009 

7/22/2009 

7/24/2009 

8/1/2009 

8/17/2009 

1/20/2010 

Combs & Sons 

Coolman 

Coolman 

Coolman 

Coolman 

Coolman 

lots on Main, 

Deodor and 

Pulaski 


Rt. 30 

Lot S-7 


Rt. 30 

Lot S-7 


Rt. 30 

Lot H-19 


Rt. 30 

Lot H-24 


1454 Byfield 

Lot 112 



Termidor 

Outside Spray 

Mixture 

Outside Spray 

Mixture 

MasterLine 

Outside Spray 

Mixture 

Termidor 


RT 


RT 


RT 

Howard Shults 

RT 


RT 

David Wilson 

CA 

NO 

Graph 

Diagram 

Dimensions 

NO 

Graph 

Diagram 

Dimensions 

EPA # 

NO 

Graph 

Diagram 

Dimensions 

EPA # 

YES 

NO 

Graph 

Diagram 

Dimensions 

EPA # 

NO 

Graph 

Diagram 

Dimensions 

4. OISC was not notified of any of the above pre-treats. In addition, seven (7) of the pre-treats did not have complete 

records for one reason or another. The records deficiencies are noted in column six of the above table. 

Kevin W. Neal Date: December 2, 2010 


5. I called Monroe Pest Control on December 3, 2010, and was advised that “Outside Spray Mixture” was either 

Termidor or Masterline. 

Disposition: David Wilson was warned for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, 

specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2(3), for failure to keep mandatory records. 

David Wilson was cited for twelve (12) counts of violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2(6), for failure to notify the state chemist of preconstruction termite 

control treatments. A civil penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 (12 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed for this 

violation. However, the civil penalty was reduced to $750.00. Consideration was given to the fact that Monroe Pest 

Control cooperated during the investigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar 

nature and no potential for damage. 


Compliance Officer 2nd Draft Date: January 3, 2011 

Final Date: January 26, 2011

CASE SUMMARY 




800-893-6637 

Business: Burt’s Termite and Pest Control 

Doug Foster Certified Applicator 

1441 Lafayette Avenue 

Columbus, IN 47201 

812-372-3212 


Case #2011/0182 

1. On November 30, 2010, I performed a routine facility inspection at Burt’s Termite and Pest 

Control in Columbus, Indiana. I met with Autumn Sandlin, administrative assistant for Burt’s, 

regarding termite records, specifically pre-construction termite records. Ms. Sandlin contacted 

Doug Foster who was in the field at the time of my inspection. I spoke with Mr. Foster via 

telephone. Mr. Foster stated he performed one (1) pre-construction termite application in 

September of 2010. Mr. Foster stated he did not notify the Office of the Indiana State Chemist of 

the application. Mr. Foster admitted he was aware of the pre-construction termite notification but 

failed to notify the Office of the Indiana State Chemist. 

2. On November 30, 2010, Mr. Foster faxed me the application records for the pre-treat applications 

at the Indiana National Guard’s Muscatatuck Urban Training Center located at 4243 E. 

Administrative Drive, Butlerville, Indiana. Burt’s was sub-contracted by Taylor Brothers 

Construction Co., Inc., located at 4555 Middle Road, Columbus, Indiana, to make preconstruction 

termite applications to five (5) structures to be used a barracks. 

3. On December 3, 2010, I reviewed the treatment record submitted by Burt’s. Upon inspection of 

the records, I found a discrepancy with the total amount of use dilution used by Mr. Foster from 

the total amount of use dilution I calculated based on Mr. Foster’s measurements and diagram. 

Mr. Foster’s records indicate that only the horizontal barrier was applied. The label for Talstar P, 

EPA. Reg. #279-3206, active ingredient bifenthrin, states in addition to the Horizontal barrier, 

“Vertical barriers must be established in areas such as around the base of foundation…” 

4. Mr. Foster’s calculations: 

Application on 9/14/10 

2 slabs 50X28 

Horizontal barrier 1400 sq. ft 

1400sq. ft X .1 (1 gallon per 10 sq. ft) X 2 (2 slabs) = 280gallons (amount on paperwork) 

Omitted calculation 

Vertical barrier 156 lin. Ft 

156lin. Ft X .4 (4gallons per 10 lin. ft) X 1 (1 DTF) = 62.4 

62.4 X 2 slabs= 124.8 gallons

Grand total 

280 gallons (Horizontal) + 124.8 gallons (Vertical) = 404.8 gallons 

Application on 9/21/10 

3 slabs 50 X 28 

Horizontal barrier 

1400sq. ft X .1 (1 gallon per 10 sq. ft) X 3 (3 slabs) = 420 gallons (amount on paperwork) 

Omitted calculation 

Vertical barrier 156 lin. Ft 

156lin. Ft X .4 (4gallons per 10 lin. ft) X 1 (1 DTF) = 62.4 

62.4 X 3 slabs= 187.2 gallons 

Grand total 

420 gallons (Horizontal) + 187.2 gallons (Vertical) = 607.2 gallons 

5. On December 3, 2010, I spoke with Mr. Foster regarding the discrepancy. Mr. Foster stated he 

did not do the inside vertical. Mr. Foster stated he thought he only needed to do the exterior 

vertical. Mr. Foster took full responsibility for the error and failure to notify the Office of the 

Indiana State Chemist. Mr. Foster stated he would contact the construction company about the 

discrepancy and propose applying Termidor termiticide as an exterior perimeter treatment once 

final grade has been achieved. 

Paul J. Kelley Date: December 8, 2010 


Disposition: Doug Foster was cited for violation of section 65(6) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and 

Application Law, specifically 355 IAC 4-5-2(6), for failure to notify the state chemist of a 

preconstruction termite control treatment. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for 

this violation. 

Doug Foster was cited for two (2) counts of violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use 

and Application Law for failure to follow label-directed application rates. A civil penalty in the 

amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. 

The total amount of civil penalty assessed for this investigation is $750.00. However, the civil 

penalty was reduced to $412.50. Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Foster cooperated 

during the investigation and corrective action was taken. 

George N. Saxton Date: December 10, 2010 


CC: 

Taylor Brothers Construction Co., Inc. 

4555 Middle Road 

Columbus, IN 47203 

Indiana National Guard 

Muscatatuck Urban Training Center 

4243 E. Administrative Drive 

Butlerville, IN 47223

A Summary of Civil Penalties 20100178 Disposition: Robert Petro ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?