12.07.2015 Views

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist - Purdue University

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist - Purdue University

case summary - Office of Indiana State Chemist - Purdue University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

cited that the company changed the way records are kept over the past year, and that therehad been personnel turnover in the <strong>of</strong>fice. After examining the application records, it wasdetermined that David Bluhm had, in fact, made for-hire pesticide applications for thebusiness on several days contrary to what Mr. Steinecker had told me. Additionally, therecords indicated Mr. Fox, Mr. Mathewson, Mr. Garwood and Dan Kaminsky, a former<strong>Indiana</strong> licensee whose pesticide applicator license became inactive in 2002, made forhirepesticide applications in <strong>Indiana</strong> without either the on-site supervision <strong>of</strong> an <strong>Indiana</strong>certified applicator or a valid <strong>Indiana</strong> pesticide applicator license. The days documentedare as follows:2011 May 13, 14, 15, 25, 31June 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30July 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 25, 26, 28August 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 27, 31September 22November 11December 122012 March 19, 23, 29April 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 16, 17, 20, 25, 26, 27, 305. New Era Ag has since licensed the applicators involved in this investigation; Mr. Bluhmwas issued a registered technician credential and Mr. Mathewson, Mr. Garwood and Mr.Kaminsky obtained certification and are licensed. In addition, New Era Ag addedanother registered technician and another certified applicator.Andrew R. Roth Date: October 30, 2012Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition: Bill Steinecker was cited for fifty-seven (57) counts <strong>of</strong> section 65(6) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Indiana</strong>Pesticide Use and Application Law for failure to properly supervise a non-licensed employee. Acivil penalty in the amount <strong>of</strong> $7,125.00 was assessed for this violation. However, the civilpenalty was reduced to $3,918.75. Consideration for mitigation was given to the fact correctiveaction was taken; there was no previous history <strong>of</strong> similar nature and no restricted use productswere documented as having been used. Consideration against mitigation was given to the factMr. Steinecker did not appear to be completely truthful during the initial investigation.George N. Saxton Draft Date: November 28, 2012Compliance <strong>Office</strong>r Final Date: January 4, 2013Page 2 <strong>of</strong> 2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!