NATIONAL QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF THE FY 89 STATE PESTICIDE
ENFORCEMENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM
The information which follows is based on the FY 89 end-of-year evaluation
reports submitted by the EPA Regional Pesticide Branches. These end-of-
year evaluations, completed by the Regions, focussed on the work conducted
by the States, Tribes and Territories under the FY 89 pesticide enforcement
cooperative agreements. This report was first circulated in draft form, for
review, to the EPA Regional Offices in November, 1990. This final report
incorporates comments received by the Office of Compliance Monitoring's
Grants and Evaluation Branch.
Grants and Evaluation Branch
Policy & Grants Division
Office of Compliance Monitoring, OPTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES 2
III. HIGHLIGHTS/SUMMARY SECTION 3
IV. STATE PRIORITIES 7
V. COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS 11
VI. SUCCESS IN MEETING INSPECTION PROJECTIONS 14
Charts: Number of Inspections Completed
Number of of Actionable Inspections
Commitments Versus Outputs
National Figures on Inspections
and Enforcement Actions
VII. QUALITY OF INSPECTIONS AND CASE DEVELOPMENT 17
VIII. QUALITY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 20
IX. MAINTAINING FILES AND TRACKING 21
X. ANALYTICAL ACTIVITIES 22
XI. STATE LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS 24
XII. STATE PROGRAM NEEDS 25
XIII. REVIEW OF EPA'S PERFORMANCE 27
XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS 29
-------
NATIONAL QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF THE FY 89 STATE PESTICIDE
ENFORCEMENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM
I. Introduction
This report is the result of a national qualitative review of the FY 89 state
pesticide enforcement cooperative agreement program. It is based solely on the
state/tribal end-of-year evaluation reports submitted by the Regions on each pesticide
enforcement cooperative agreement program. More specifically, this qualitative
assessment focusses on the narrative portion of the evaluations, which contain a wealth
of information analyzed. The areas of state/tribal enforcement addressed in this report
include: enforcement priorities, the coordination of programs, the quality of inspections
and case development, the quality of enforcement actions, state program needs, EPA's
performance, and recommendations from FY 89 end-of-year evaluation reports.
This document is based on fifty-six evaluations received from all ten Regions.
(The review of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona's program effectively includes six
individual tribes.) The end-of-year evaluation reports reviews varied in length and
detail depending on the reviewer and the Region. The variations in the completeness
of the reviews tend to weaken their usefulness in any effort to compare the
performance of one state with another, or one Region with another. But the mass of
detail provided by the end-of-year evaluations should give us a clearer general picture
of any national trends and of areas where the program as a whole is weak or working
well.
The process for completing such national qualitative reviews should become
more straightforward in the future. In upcoming end-of-year state reviews, all Regions
will be addressing the same particular topics in each of their evaluations, in addition to
any state specific o: regional specific issues which need to be addressed based on the
Region's expertise and knowledge of individual pesticide enforcement programs.
The purpose of the national qualitative review was to determine what we could
learn about the implementation of the program nationally from the ind "dual FY 89
end-of-year evaluations. The results of this review follow in the highlig /summary
section and subsequent pages.
-------
II. Follow-up Activities
From now on, a national qualitative review of the state pesticide enforcement
cooperative agreement program will be completed at least annually. OCM will
continue to use the Regions' end-of-year evaluation reports on state programs as the
primary source of data for the national review, along with other pertinent tools/sources
of data available to the office.
With regard to this particular review of the national FY 89 program, OCM's
Grants and Evaluation Branch found that the information on state priorities, quality of
inspections, state legislative developments and EPA's approach toward conducting semi-
annual evaluations, could be factored into this year's and next year's development,
implementation and evaluation of the state pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreement program. More specifically, the results of the review are being fed into
followup activities focussing on: 1) state inspector training; 2) further consistency in
EPA's approach toward and protocol for conducting semi-annual evaluations of state
pesticide enforcement programs; 3) followup on the results of EPA's individual semi-
annual evaluations of state programs; 4) the development of an oversight manual for
state pesticide programs; 5) development of next years's annual cooperative agreement
guidance; 6) responding to Congressional requests for information on state priorities; 7)
further justifying budget requests; and 8) future national qualitative reviews. The
highlights and results of the review follow.
-------
III. Highlights/Summary Section
This section includes the highlights and summary information on most of the
specific subject areas addressed in this report. More detailed information is included in
sections III - DC.
Priorities: Thirty-five of the 56 FY 89 end-of-year reviews discussed the
priorities of the State/Tribal lead agency. Followup on cancellations/suspensions of
pesticides was the national enforcement priority which EPA included in its FY 89
national state pesticide cooperative agreement guidance. The states had their own,
additional priorities. Based on these 35 end-of-year evaluations, the following were the
top four areas listed as FY 89 state priorities for enforcement:
1) monitoring suspended and cancelled pesticides;
2) handling, storage and disposal of pesticides;
3) pesticide drift; and
4) pest control operations (particularly structural pest control operations
Coordination of Programs; Twenty-six end-of-year evaluations commented on the
quality and development of cooperation between agencies within a State or Tribe.
Remarks in the reports were generally positive, especially with regard to State Lead
Agency relationships with their respective Cooperative Extension Services.
However, this national review did highlight the importance of ensuring that
"coordination of programs", including coordination between States and Tribes, is
specifically addressed in every future end-of-year evaluation and the resulting reports.
A separate discussion on "End-of-Year Evaluations Completed by EPA Regional
Offices" is included at the end of the highlights section and identifies areas which
generally need to be addressed further in EPA's end-of-year reviews.
Success in Meeting Inspection Projections; Nationally, states and tribes
completed 189% of their inspectional commitments (14,513 projected versus 27,392
completed). It seems that projections negotiated by the States with the Regions are
normally conservative, a circumstance that partly accounts for this high percentage of
inspections completed. Only one Region fell short on its overall state grant
commitments. Forty-three state and tribal lead agencies (SLAs) did not meet
projections (95% or less) in at least one inspectional category. Thirty-two of these
were reported to have conducted significantly fewer (66% or less) than the number
projected in at least one category.
The types of inspections where states and tribes were most likely to fall short of
projections were experimental use, non-agricultural use and agricultural use inspections.
-------
Most of the reviews did not fully explain why a state or tribe did not complete
the number of inspections projected. Of those that did provide explanations, ten
referred to understaffing; three states pointed to other, more pressing priorities; three
states indicated that they did not complete follow-up inspection projections because
they received fewer complaints than expected.
Quality of Inspections and Case Development; Fifty end-of-year reviews
commented in some way on the quality of the State Lead Agencies (SLAs) and Tribes'
inspectional and case review activities. The following information is based on these 50
reports.
Twenty states and tribes (or 40%) found investigation files to be complete and
properly documented. Weaknesses in one or more aspects of the quality of inspections
and case development were found in thirty states and tribes.
Weaknesses in the documentation of inspections (photographs, maps, affidavits,
etc.) were identified in reviews of 14 state enforcement programs (or 28% of the
reviews). Several of these problems involved documentary samples, especially the
collection of product labels. The other problems noted are discussed late in the report.
Very few reviews noted problems in the area of timeliness of reports, responses
to complaints and case reviews.
Seven reviews identified problems in the quality of the inspection reports, and
seven SLAs were reported to have not used or improperly used certain forms
associated with inspections (i.e. NOIs).
Two reviews from two different Regions noted delays in the Regions' processing
of referrals from the State, while difficulties in referrals from the Region were
identified in five states.
Quality of Enforcement Actions; Thirty-three reviews commented on some aspect
of the quality of the SLAs' enforcement actions. Approximately two-thirds of these
reviews made generally positive comments about the enforcement actions being taken
and did not indicate significant areas needing improvement.
The remaining third (of these 33 reviews) identified problems including the
following: unavailability of attorneys to address enforcement issues; delays in taking
enforcement actions; enforcement actions inconsistent with state enforcement response
policies; inconsistent application of the state's penalty matrix; and a deficiency in the
state taking enforcement actions.
-------
Analytical Activities; Fourteen of the thirty-eight reviews (or 39% of the reviews)
that addressed lab performance identified a problem in the timely provision of sample
analyses.
Not many reasons for the slowness of sample turn around time were given in
the evaluations. Five states indicated, however, that the unavailability of suitable
methodology and standards had slowed analysis. One state in particular claimed that
residue samples were delayed due to lack of available methods and standards to
analyze many newer pesticides, while another cited the lack of a suitable methodology
for the analysis of active ingredients for their delay in providing the results of
formulation samples.
Eight state labs identified a need for additional equipment, although not all of
them specified what type. Five state labs said they needed a gas or liquid
chromatograph, or both; another specified a GPC cleaning system. Three labs
identified a need for additional personnel or for reassigning personnel to conduct
pesticide analyses. One reviewer commented that unless something is done to change
the career structure and salary in a particular state's lab, it seemed that personnel
shortages would be a perpetual problem. Two labs identified a need for additional
training for their chemists. Other needs: material safety data sheets (1 state),
updating of ASD sample tracking system (1), a geographic information system (1),
increased laboratory resources (1).
State Legislative Developments: Nearly all the reviews addressed the section on
legislative and regulatory developments in the states and tribes. The reviews did
indicate that there is significant movement nationally towards instituting or increasing
states' civil penalty authorities, which sixteen of the reviews addressed. Six reviews
reported that their states gained civil penalty authority in FY 89; six others report that
civil penalty authority had been proposed or recommended; and four states obtained or
sought in FY 89 modifications in their civil penalty authority.
State Program Needs; In the FY 89 end-of-years, twenty-one States and Tribe.
expressed the need for additional training. Fifteen of these requests were for training
for field inspectors. Nine SLAs expressed a need for guidance or training on the new
pesticide initiatives (groundwater, endangered species and worker protection).
Review of EPA's Performance; Eighteen reviews addressed the views of the SLAs
toward EPA. Nine SLAs commented on the shortcomings in EPA's communication
with States. Seven of the nine comments came from States in two Regions.
Recommendations included in End-of-Year Evaluations of State Programs;
Forty-four of the reviews included Regional recommendations on how the State
-------
could improve its performance in some way. The categories for recommendations
included the following: 1) suggestions for procedural changes; 2) updating required
grant-related documents within the state; 3) improved performance; 4) training; 5)
analytical; 6) legislative or regulatory changes; 7) personnel changes; 8) tracking/data
systems; 9) improved coordination within State/Tribe; and 10) increased coordination
with EPA. It was interesting to note than many of the problems identified in previous
sections of the individual evaluation reports were not followed by specific
recommendations to the State or Tribe in the "recommendations" sections.
Areas Needing More Attention by EPA When Conducting Future End-of-Year
Evaluations
This national qualitative review indicated that EPA needs to focus more
attention, in general, on certain areas when conducting semi-annual evaluations of state
pesticide enforcement grant programs. Some of these areas include the following:
a) All aspects of a state program outlined in the format for conducting end-of-
year reviews (in the annual cooperative agreement guidance) should be
addressed. If a particular area does not apply to a state or tribe, then the
evaluation report should state so; b) all significant problems identified in any
aspect of the state or tribe's program should be addressed in the
recommendations, as mentioned earlier; c) more detailed information needs to
be provided on whether or not State and national priorities were addressed; d)
in discussing the quality of inspection reports, case files, case development
activities and enforcement actions, the Region needs to be specific about the
areas in which a state/tribe is weak, if any (i.e., information missing from
reports, timeliness of enforcement actions; etc.) in discussing the state's analytical
performance, the review should indicate the average turn-around time for sample
analyses.
The national protocol for conducting FY 91 and future end-of-year
evaluations will be revised based on the information gained through this review and
circulated to the EPA Regional Pesticide Branches for comment. The national
protocol will not limit a Region's evaluation; it simply helps to ensure that certain
topics are address, as a minimum, in every end-of-year evaluation.
-------
IV. STATE PRIORITIES
Thirty-five of the fifty-six reviews discussed or referenced the priorities of the
state/tribal lead agency. Three Regions did not provide enough information on state
priorities in their reviews to be included in this section. (The Priorities for tribes in
Region VIII are determined, as necessary, by the Region.)
The top national enforcement priority to be addressed by the states for FY 89
was cancellation/compliance inspections; these were defined by EPA in the FY 89
Cooperative Agreement Guidance as followup on major cancellation actions,
suspensions, changes in classifications and stop sale, stop use or removal orders. In
addition to this, each state is required to have its own priorities, some of which overlap
with the national priority.
Each of a state or tribe's listed priorities were grouped with similar priorities
from other states and tribes to identify the most significant state priorities nationally,
based on the 35 reviews, and to determine if certain priorities were focussed primarily
in any particular Region. As stated, the following is based on 35 end-of-year
evaluation reports. In the parentheses next to each title, we have indicated the number
and percentage of states listing this topic as priority.
MONITOR SUSPENDED AND CANCELLED PESTICIDES (19 states/tribes or 49% of the
states and tribes whose priorities were listed)
Seventeen of the state and tribal lead agencies identified as one of their own
priorities in the reviews. (This is 49% of the states from whom information was
available in the evaluations.) Most of these SLAs are located in Regions IV and V.
Based on a review of cooperative agreement applications by the Grants and Evaluation
Branch, it is recognized that the majority of other states commit to following up on
compliance with suspensions and cancellations in their agreements; these states simply
did not list follow-up in this area as one of their state priorities.
HANDLING, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL (15 or 43%)
Fifteen SLAs (or 43%) identified the handling, storage and disposal of pesticides
as a top priority, with most of these citing only disposal of pesticide containers as the
predominate concern. The distribution of this priority was spread fairly evenly
throughout the country. For example, North Dakota emphasized addressing the
disposal of pesticides wastes and containers in coordination with RCRA; Indiana
identified runoff from pesticide storage and loading facilities and bulk handling and
distribution facilities as a major concern; Colorado planned to develop an enforcement
program for the storage of pesticides and containers.
-------
DRIFT (14 or 40%)
Fourteen states (or 40%) identified drift from both aerial and ground spraying
as a major concern. Regions IV, V and VII each had three states with drift as a
priority.
PEST CONTROL INDUSTRY (12 or 34%)
Twelve states (or 34%) identified the monitoring of Pest Control Operators or
PCOs as a priority. Six of these specifically targeted the structural pest control
industry, with all of these states focussing on mis-use. Indiana, for example, was
concerned with below standard application techniques, but they also emphasized
planned use investigations to ensure compliance with registration requirements for
technicians. Maryland also emphasized termite inspection certificates. The distribution
of this priority was focussed in Regions V and VI, but Regions III and VIII each had
more than one state prioritizing PCOs.
GROUNDWATER (11 or 31%)
Eleven states identified groundwater protection as a priority.
MIS-USE (7 or 20%)
Seven states identified general mis-use investigations as a priority without
focussing on a particular type of mis-use. Three Region IV states emphasized
"strengthened enforcement activities regarding the investigation of alleged pesticide
misuse. All but one of these SLAs were from Regions IV and X.
WORKER PROTECTION (6 or 17%)
Six states identified worker protection as a priority for FY 89, although only two
of these specifically mentioned the planning for implementation and enforcement of the
revised Worker Protection Standards. New Mexico emphasized involuntary exposure to
agricultural workers or applicators to pesticides, while Washington specifically
mentioned farmworker exposure. (Planning for worker protection enforcement became
a national priority in FY 90.)
Distribution: 3 of the 6 states in Region IV, and the rest in different Regions.
RUP DEALER INSPECTIONS (5 or 14%)
Distribution: 3 of the 5 states in Region V, and the rest in different Regions.
8
-------
Four SLAs identified misuse in urban areas as a priority.
Distribution: 4 different Regions
PROPER LICENSING (4 or 11%)
Emphasis on proper licensing in general was indicated for 4 states.
Distribution: 2 from Region VI and the rest in different Regions
MAJOR SPRAY PROGRAMS (3 or 9%)
Three SLAs emphasized pesticide use problems associated with major spray
programs, such as the Gypsy Moth Quarantine and Control Programs.
Distribution: 2 from Region V and the rest in different Regions
HOME Mis-USE AND INCIDENTS (3 or 9%)
Georgia listed mis-use around the home as a priority, while Utah specified the
home misuse of 2,4-D. Pennsylvania zeroed in on home yard incidents.
PEI INSPECTIONS (2 or 6%)
TRAINING NEEDS (2 or 6%)
PROTECT DOMESTIC ANIMALS (2 or 6%)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (2 or 6%)
ENDANGERED SPECIES (2 or 6%)
FOOD SAFETY (2 or 6%)
NON-AG INDUSTRY (2 or 6%)
10
-------
V. COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS
For the purposes of this report, the coordination of state and tribal pesticide
enforcement programs with other agencies has been divided into three levels: a)
coordination between agencies within the same state; b) coordination between different
states and between states and tribes, and c) coordination between state and federal
agencies (excluding EPA, a topic which will be addressed in later sections addressing
EPA's performance and state needs).
A. COORDINATION BETWEEN INTER-STATE (OR TRIBAL) AGENCIES
A total of 26 Regional reviews commented on the quality and development of
cooperation between agencies within a state or tribe.
Remarks were generally positive, especially in regard to SLA relationships with
their respective Extension Service (13 comments). Most of these concerned the
continuing cooperation with Extension on certification activities, particularly concerning
the updating and development of training and testing materials. In Nevada the SLA
and the Cooperative Extension services shared information on violation rates, while in
Colorado the SLA was working with Extension Specialists, along with agricultural
producers, pesticide applicators and industry representatives, in an effort to evaluate
and resolve problems surrounding the misapplication of sulfonyl urea.
Eight reviews mentioned positive coordination with state Departments of Health.
Three SLAs reported that they contact their departments of health when certain
pesticide-related instances arise; in North Dakota and in Hawaii, for example, MOUs
exist to ensure cooperation on the disposal of household and farm hazardous wastes.
Groundwater was also a prominent area for cooperation between agencies, with
seven review s explicitly mentioning cooperation. The agencies involved varied,
however. iontana's SLA was designated to work with the state Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences to set water quality standards for the new agri-chemicals in
groundwater programs. In Arizona, efforts on groundwater were coordinated between
the Office of State Chemist and the Department of Environmental Quality. In Texas,
it was anticipated that in 1990 there would be efforts to establish an MOU with the
Texas Water Commission on issues relating to groundwater. Washington's SLA
developed MOUs with the State Department of Ecology and the Department of Health
to develop and implement an agricultural chemical in groundwater management plan.
The Navaho SLA exchanged information with the Drinking Water Program on livestock
dipping ; ~ts, well war and vulnerable ground water areas.
.ations with other state agencies and reorganizations with the SLA were also
frequently reported in the reviews. On the Navaho reservation, the Division of
11
-------
Resources and the Division of Water Resources were merged into the Division of
Natural Resources. In Oregon the legislature established the Pesticide Analytical and
Response Center (PARC) as a mechanism for coordinating investigation of pesticide
complaints involving human health or environmental effects among various state
agencies, including of course the pesticide SLA; the SLA conducted investigations as
requested by the Director of PARC. In New Mexico, the SLA was considering doing
an MOU with the State Highway Department regarding licensing. Texas developed an
MOU with the Texas Department of Corrections, which agreed to conduct inspections
to determine whether Federal/State pesticide laws and standards were currently being
met in the state's prisons. Washington State had a MOU with the Washington
Department of Labor and Industries for the purpose of defining roles and
responsibilities of each party for the protection of workers from pesticide exposure;
similarly, Oregon was planning to enter into an MOU with the state OSHA regarding
investigation of cases involving pesticides and procedures for referrals. In Rhode
Island, the state Relief Advisory Board appointed by the legislature meets with the
director of the state pesticide program to make recommendations regarding pesticide
legislation and regulations.
One review remarked that a state with several field offices was not processing
cases uniformly. No elaboration on this problem was given in the review.
B. COORDINATION BETWEEN STATES AND BETWEEN STATES AND TRIBES
Two reviews from Region 4 commented on relations between states. One
review noted that Kentucky had reciprocal agreements in place with Indiana and
Tennessee regarding certification, and also said that MOUs may be necessary with
neighboring states for inter-state violation procedures. Tennessee had a special project
in FY 89 to examine Certification Reciprocity in Region IV and explore the possible
development of a plan to combine exam information from all Region IV states into a
common pool of questions. These could then be used by all states independently,
resulting in a certification process that would then allow applicators to operate between
states using the same license.
Four reviews touched on state/tribal relations. The Cheyenne River Indian
Tribe mentioned that occasional joint inspections, using tribal authority, are conducted
on the reservation with state South Dakota inspectors. Other states have developed
agreements with tribes. Washington's reviewer noted that even though a good working
relation existed between the state and various tribes, there had been a move toward
formal written agreements instead of the traditional verbal agreements. One verbal
agreement with the Yakima Indian Tribal Council allowed state inspectors to enforce
state law on the reservation. A formal MOU was anticipated for FY 91. One
reviewer recommended cooperation between North Dakota and Ft. Berthold to ensure
a consistent program within state boundaries.
12
-------
C. COORDINATION BETWEEN STATES/TRIBES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
A few reviews mentioned coordination between SLA's and federal agencies other
than EPA. Region IV recommended increased cooperation between the Tennessee
Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The review
noted the two agencies needed to inform each other to facilitate the coordination of
inspection schedules; the reviewer also remarked that it may be necessary to develop
an MOU similar to the one that exists between EPA and FDA. Louisiana's SLA had
plans underway to work with various agencies, such as the FDA and the USD A, in
connection with the state's new Food Safety Plan. Louisiana was also working with the
state's Environmental Quality agency and the U.S. Geological Survey on a statewide
advisory committee on groundwater; necessary MOUs were in the works. New Mexico
had MOUs in place with several federal agencies, including the USDA's Animal
Damage Control and the U.S. Forest Service, regarding training, testing and licensing.
13
-------
VI. SUCCESS IN MEETING INSPECTION PROJECTIONS
Nationally, states and tribes completed 189% of their inspectional commitments
(14,513 projected versus 27,392 completed). Projections negotiated by the States with
the Regions are normally very conservative, a circumstance that partly accounts for the
high percentage of inspections completed. Only one Region (VII) fell short on its
overall state grant commitments.
Forty-three state and tribal lead agencies, however, did not meet projections
(95% or less) in at least one inspectional category. Thirty-two of these were reported
to have conducted significantly fewer (66% or less) than the number projected in at
least one category.
The types of inspections where states and tribes were most likely to fall short of
projections were experimental use inspections (18 states and tribes), non-agricultural
use (17) and agricultural use (16). The following chart gives the number of
states/tribes that did not accomplish projected outputs, by inspection category.
STATES/TRIBES
Experimental Use 18
Non-Ag Use 17
Ag Use 16
Producer 14
Non-Ag Followup 11
Dealer Records 10
Certified Applicator 10
Ag Use Followup 8
Marketplace 8
Import 4
The categories in which significant (66% or less) shortfalls were reported
include:
STATES/TRIBES
Experimental Use: 16
Non-Agricultural Use: 11
Agricultural Use: 11
Producer Establishment 7
Certified Applicators: 6
Agricultural Follow-up: 5
Non-Ag Use Follow-up: 3
Import: 3
14
-------
STATES NOT MEETING PROJECTIONS IN MORE THAN ONE CATEGORY
Some states failed to meet inspection commitments in more than one category.
The following chart describes how many states and tribes failed to fulfill their
projections in one or more categories.
Number of Categories
123456
Number of States/Tribes 11 10 9 9 3 1
Not Meeting Projections
The number of states that fell significantly short of projections in more than one
category also varied.
Number of Categories
123456
Number of States/Tribes 12 8 7 5 -
Not Meeting Projections
REASONS FOR INSPECTIONAL SHORTFALLS
A majority of the reviews gave little or no explanation for why a state did not
complete the number of inspections projected. Those that were given, however, cited a
number of similar circumstances:
- ten evaluations pointed to understating. Five of these situations were caused
by one or more inspectors leaving the program unexpectedly. One state was
reported to be undergoing a severe fiscal crises, which had depleted the staff.
- three evaluations reported other priorities preventing a state from completing
inspections in certain categories. Two states, for example, were unable to
complete all its producer establishment inspections because the number of
follow-up inspections exceeded the number projected. The third state simply
claimed that other priorities (Alar, food safety, insecticide chalk, etc.) interfered.
- three states claimed that they didn't complete the non-agricultural use follow-
up inspections projected because they received fewer complaints than they
expected. Similarly, one state did not have any occasion to perform any of the
four experimental use inspections projected.
15
-------
- one SLA mentioned its reorganization as a reason for falling short of
projections in several categories.
- two SLAs had problems with reporting their inspection numbers to EPA. One
of these states said that they had changed from reporting the number of
inspections initiated to the number of inspections completed, which resulted in
lower reported accomplishments.
- one state attributed the shortfall in the number of certified applicator
inspections conducted to a planning oversight; many of their State inspections
could have been conducted as federal inspections instead.
16
-------
VH. QUALITY OF INSPECTIONS AND CASE DEVELOPMENT
Fifty of the fifty-six reviews made comments on the quality of the SLAs'
inspectional and case review activities. The comments are grouped below according to
the subject addressed: 1) documentation; 2) quality of inspection reports; 3) use of
proper forms; 4) completeness of inspectipn; 4) enforcement actions; 5) timeliness of
response to complaints and tips; 6) timeliness of inspection reports, case review; and 7)
referrals.
Twenty of the fifty reviews made generally positive comments on the quality of
inspections and case development, with at least 17 reviews (40%) finding the
investigation files to be complete and properly documented. Weaknesses in at least
one aspect of inspections and case development were noted in 27 states and tribes.
The depth of the Regional analyses of these problems, however, varied more in this
area than in others. Some Regions (such as Region V) seemed to have performed an
exhaustive review of the case files, and noted the slightest inconsistency or weakness,
while some other Regions made only very general comments. It could be difficult to
draw any firm conclusions from any comparison of the performance of one state
against other states, since this might be more a measure of the depth and detail of the
review itself rather than the performance of the state. The value of this assessment on
weaknesses in the quality of inspections and case development, therefore, lies mainly
with the identification of problems that were most frequently reported.
DOCUMENTATION
Weaknesses in the documentation of inspections were identified in fourteen
SLAs (28% of the reviews). Several of these problems involved documentary samples,
especially the collection of product labels. The "documentation" problems identified
included the following:
- some inspectors in one state were relying on specimen labels from their office
files, rather than pulling the label, whenever possible, from the actual pesticide
product applied by users;
- in one state, many marketplace inspection reports lacked shipping
documentation;
- in a different state, the general evidence gathered was adequate except for lack
of product labels;
- two states were not uniformly completing inspection reports within the same
state;
17
-------
- two Tribes were not documenting all their inspections properly;
- in one state, some cases were noted where the inspection form indicated a
possible problem, but not enough information was presented to evaluate whether
an enforcement action was warranted;
- in another state, maps were not properly labeled or lacked complete
information, and not all observed violations were documented;
- three states in one Region were reported to have significant problems with
documentation. A review of the files indicated a lack of documented chain of
custody for samples, lack of written statements by interviewers, inconsistencies on
photographic evidence and its authentication, and incomplete documentary
samples.
QUALITY OF INSPECTION REPORTS
Weaknesses in inspection reports were identified in six SLAs, with all the
comments focussing on the narrative. In one state, for example, the reviewer found
that statements as to whether or not producer facilities were in compliance were used
instead of concise, clear and objective narratives on the observations made and the
questions/answers obtained during the inspection. In two other states also in the same
Region, the narratives were found lacking; in one, a number of inspection files did not
contain narratives for sufficient case review and enforcement disposition, and in the
other, the narratives of marketplace inspections were incomplete. The narratives in
three other states were also weak. In one state, most case files were lacking a
narrative; the narratives in another were difficult to understand due to poor
organization and the inclusion of irrelevant information; in a third state no descriptive
information beyond a checklist was provided in reports. One Indian Tribes was also
reported to have done incomplete reports in several inspection types, not including
narratives or any kind of description about the kind of inspection activities taking place
and about the site of the inspection itself.
USE OF PROPER FORMS
Six SLAs were reported to have not used or improperly used certain forms
associated with inspections. Four of the six involved Notices of Inspection (NOIs). In
one case reviewed in one state, an NOI and Facility Inspection form was not used. In
three states, NOIs were not being used on a routine basis. Another state has
continued to use an outdated NOI form that lacks a place to enter current inspection
category numbers.
18
-------
COMPLETENESS OF INSPECTIONS
Two SLAs were reported to have not completed a significant number of
investigations. In another state, several cases were closed on the basis of insufficient
evidence, yet the investigations themselves were incomplete. One review of a tribe said
that more thorough inspections could be conducted in cases such as pesticide exposure
incidents, fish kill, drift of pesticides over residential areas, etc., to determine the type
of violation that may have taken place.
REFERRALS
Difficulties with referrals from Regions to States were found in five states, three
of which are in the same Region. In one state the turn around time on inspections
had almost always been adequate, but there were a couple of special request referrals
that were not completed and returned to the Region in time to meet Headquarters'
deadlines.
Two review from two Regions noted delays in the Regions' processing of
referrals coming from the state. One Region was reportedly far from its goal of taking
action on state referrals within 60 days of receipt.
TIMELINESS OF REPORTS, RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS AND CASE REVIEW
Very few reviews noted problems in this area. Two states were noted for their
slowness in generating inspection reports, although in one case this was apparently due
to a backlog of complaints. Two states were also found to be slow to develop their
cases, although the reviews provided no elaboration on this. One reviewer noted the
State's slow response to follow-up on cases.
AVERAGE TIME TAKEN TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINTS
Seventeen reviews provided at least some information on the average time an
SLA took to respond to complaints, and all of the comments were positive. Some
reviews simply called the response time "adequate" or "prompt," but others provided
rough or exact (Region III) numbers of the average response time.
19
-------
VIII. QUALITY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Thirty-three reviews commented on some aspect of the quality of the SLA's
enforcement actions. Approximately two-thirds of these comments were positive.
Four states were reported to be having trouble keeping up with enforcement
actions. In two of these states, the unavailability of an attorney to address enforcement
issues delayed enforcement actions, or attorney time was not always available, and
bottlenecks developed during peak season periods. A third state also had trouble
keeping up with case development load since a case development position was lost
several years before due to budget cuts. One state reported that violative cases were
generally handled promptly, except when they were delayed awaiting completion of
sample analyses. One review included a graph indicating a 60% deficiency in the state
initiating enforcement actions within agreed-up timeframes.
Eight reviews touched on the SLA's Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) or
Enforcement Matrix. Three states were reported to have taken actions inconsistent
with their respective penalty matrices. One state was apparently not following its
penalty matrix at all; in a second state there were inconsistencies in penalties issued for
the same violation; and in the third the reviewer found a significant number of cases
where it seemed that the state was not consistently applying the penalty matrix and
issuing less stringent actions than the matrix prescribes. The other comments on ERPs
reported developments of new penalty matrices or made suggestions on how to redraft
the current ERP. One state, for example, was advised to remove the subjectivity of
the enforcement guidance document and to expand the violation type/gravity matrices.
With regard to the other enforcement problems noted in individual states and
tribes, in one state, several cases which appeared to contain adequate evidence and
documentation of violations were left incomplete without any indication of the state's
intent to pursue remedies or enforcement actions, and less than 10% of the total
enforcement actions reported to EPA were verified by documents contained in the case
files; another state had no authority to issue minor enforcement actions; and for
another state the evaluation suggested that the state consider changing the lan^ ge of
its warning letters from requesting changes of compliance to more stringent
enforcement action.
20
-------
IX. MAINTAINING FILES AND TRACKING
Seventeen reviews (in only four of the ten Regions submitting reviews)
commented directly on the quality of the files and the tracking systems in the SLAs.
Eight of these did not identify any problems. Nine of them, however, reported modest
to significant problems that need to be addressed by the states concerned. In two
states the tracking systems were reportedly in severe disarray. In one case, no real
correlation could be made between the inspections and actions recorded in the
quarterly reports due to the inconsistencies within the tracking procedures. In the
other, the tracking system did not maintain specific information on individual
inspections; it could not distinguish between routine inspections and complaint or
misuse inspections, and case files were assembled without regard to sequence or order.
Tracking systems in two other states were also found to be inadequate. Two additional
states were having trouble completing their PETS projects because of difficulties in
getting the program on-line. One state's conversion of its system to a mainframe
computer was not entirely successful; information was accessible only on a crisis basis.
21
-------
X. ANALYTICAL ACTIVITIES
Thirty-eight of the fifty-six end-of-year evaluation reports addressed one aspect
or another of the performance of the State's laboratory. Areas addressed included
timeliness of sample analyses, minimal standards, and laboratory needs.
TIMELINESS OF SAMPLE ANALYSES
Fourteen of the thirty-eight reviews that touched on at least on aspect of lab
performance (37%) identified a problem in the timely provision of sample analyses.
Eight reviews specifically mentioned that a sample backlog was found, although
two of these labs were behind in residue samples and not formulations samples.
Another lab was behind only in formulation samples. (Most of the reviews did not
distinguish between formulation and residue samples.) Three of these reviews
identified the length of the backlog: three months, four weeks and two weeks.
Eighteen evaluations commented on the average turn around time for sample
analyses, although six of these did not provide an average number. Of the remaining
twelve evaluations that did provide a number, one state lab's turn around time
averaged less than a week; five averaged less than a month; four averaged less than
two months; and three averaged more than three months. (Only two of the states
identified as having sample backlogs are included in these figures.) One review
commented that several of the lab's samples were processed so slowly (the state
averaged 42.7 days for residue, 59.2 days for formulations) that the results could not be
considered reliable and possible enforcement actions were dismissed on the basis of
inadequate laboratory data.
Not many reasons for the slowness of sample turn around time were given in
the evaluations. Five states indicated, however, that the unavailability of suitable
methodology and standards had slowed analysis. One state in particular claimed that
residue samples were delayed due to lack of available methods and standards to
analyze many newer pesticides, while another cited the lack of a suitable methodology
for the analysis of active ingredients for their delay in providing the results of
formulation samples. One state was behind on its formulation samples because the
large number of residue samples being collected during the 3rd and 4th quarters of the
project period required chemists to be temporarily reassigned to meet that demand.
MINIMAL STANDARDS
Four reviews identified problems with a lab's minimal standards or standard
operating procedures, although details were sketchy. One state lab did not have
standard operating procedures in place. A reviewer for another state (in the same
22
-------
Region) referenced an earlier NEIC report on that state's program which questioned
the legal defensibility of cases for which laboratory results were crucial evidence; the
state needed to refrigerate vegetative samples during shipment and document sample
chain-of-custody beginning at the time of collection, rather than upon receipt by the
lab.
STATE LAB NEEDS
a) Equipment: eight state labs identified a need for additional equipment,
although not all of them specified what type. Five state labs said they
needed a gas or liquid chromatograph, or both; another specified a GPC
cleaning system.
b) Three labs appeared to be having problems obtaining needed standard
samples, and one of these labs also needed information on what to do
with residue sample disposal.
c) Three labs identified a need for additional personnel or for reassigning
personnel to conduct pesticide analyses. One reviewer commented that
unless something is done to change the career structure and salary in a
particular state's lab, it seems that personnel shortages would be a
perpetual problem.
d) Two labs identified a need for additional training for their chemists.
e) Other needs: material safety data sheets (1 state), updating of ASD
sample tracking system (1), a geographic information system (1), increased
laboratory resources (1).
23
-------
XI. STATE LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
All but three of the reviews addressed some aspect of changes made or
proposed to state pesticide laws, regulations or procedures. Of these, sixteen review
addressed the state's civil penalty authority.
Six reviews reported that the respective SLAs were granted or began using
authority to administer civil penalties in FY 89.
Another six reviews reported that civil penalty authority had been proposed or
recommended in the state. In one state, for example, the Pesticide Review Board was
planning to take drafts of the revised pesticide laws, including a measure to establish
civil penalty authority, to the state legislature. In another state, an amendment
allowing for this authority had already been submitted to the legislature.
The reviews also revealed that four states have obtained or are seeking
modifications in their civil penalty authority. In one state, for example, at least two bill
were to be submitted to the legislature requesting an increase in the maximum penalty
under a civil action from $500 to $5,000. In another state a bill passed that expanded
the SLA's enforcement authority by giving it a consistently broad range of
administrative penalties.
24
-------
XII. STATE PROGRAM NEEDS
As part of the recommended format for FY 89 and 90 end-of-year reviews,
there was a section on state program needs; These are not recommendations on what
a state needs to do to improve its program, but rather areas where a state or tribe
feels it needs assistance or resources from outside sources, i.e., EPA. State program
needs were broken down into five categories: 1) training; 2) equipment; 3) personnel;
4) funding; and 5)miscellaneous.
TRAINING AND GUIDANCE
Twenty-one states and tribes expressed the need for additional training. Fifteen
of these requests were for training of field inspectors. Six of these came from one
Region which has since held additional inspector training sessions. Five requests came
from a second Region. One state expressed a particular interest in training for
agricultural use, non-agricultural use and producer inspections. Another state would
like to have training in "up-to-date" inspection and investigation techniques, and an
Indian tribe, similarly, would like to have advanced inspector training. Two SLAs
would like to have training in personal safety for their inspectors. Three states in three
different Regions would like to have case development training.
Two SLAs expressed an interest in computer training, one for an improved
tracking system and the other on EPA computer classes relating to risk assessment and
decision-making. Other types of training needs include toxicity and hazard
communication, additional training for chemists, and groundwater training.
Nine SLAs expressed a need for guidance or training on the new pesticide
initiatives (worker protection, groundwater and endangered species). Most of the
remarks about the guidance needed suggested that general training and information on
the initiatives would suffice. One state, however, specifically requested information
regarding the specific endangered species located in that state, and another requires
specific guidance on developing a state groundwater protection plan. Five of the 9
states requesting guidance and/or training on the new initiatives are in one Region.
One state would like clearer guidelines on EPA compliance Strategies. Three
states needed better up-to-date information on suspended/cancelled products from
EPA.
EQUIPMENT
Eight SLAs expressed a need for more or improved equipment, with four of
these specifying computers. One state needs an improved/new telephone system, and
another needs lab equipment.
25
-------
ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Nine SLAs expressed a need for additional funding. Three states and one tribe
needed funding to hire additional staff, and another state (Texas) expressed a pressing
need for more funding in their enforcement program. Region 1 reviews indicated that
the two of their states appear to be under-funded at the state level.
PERSONNEL
Eight SLAs identified a need for additional personnel. Three of these states are
in one Region, and two others are in a second Region.
OTHER
Three states in one Region expressed a need for continued visits by the Project
Officers; one of these states wanted to see, in particular, EPA participation in
commercial applicator training sessions.
Two states expressed a need for help in lab analyses. One of these states was
interested in EPA re-establishing a chemistry lab for disinfectant testing, saying that the
lack of established standards has hampered state efforts. The second state needed help
in analyzing "difficult/problem" samples.
26
-------
XIH. REVIEW OF EPA'S PERFORMANCE
Eighteen reviews addressed the views of their respective SLAs towards EPA.
Comments fell into four categories: 1) State/Region communication; 2) EPA guidance;
3) EPA Financial Assistance; and 4) miscellaneous.
STATE/REGION COMMUNICATION
Nine SLAs commented on perceived shortcomings in EPA's communication with
the states. Four states in one Region said that a better line of communication was
needed with the Region, with one state hoping that the managerial changes then
underway would make for better communication with both agencies. One state
complained of the slow response on the part of the Region to SFIREG requests for
training of inspectors and case development staff.
Three states in another Region expressed concern over problems in state/EPA
communication. One of these states discussed the lack of feedback from other EPA
Regions on referrals sent to them and poor responsiveness to inquiries from other
Regions. Another commented on the tardy arrival of training course notices/advisories
from Washington. The third state did not feel that EPA should announce anticipated
publication for new rules, etc., because it forces the states to make commitments which
usually are not met because of EPA delays/postponements of the target date.
EPA GUIDANCE
Three SLAs had comments on EPA's guidance (this subject was also partly
addressed in the section on State Program Needs). Two states in one Region had
interesting comments. One state expressed a need for the more timely provision of the
grant guidance; another said that the lack of adequate EPA FIFRA and RCRA
guidance has deterred effective response to potentially serious environmental problems.
The state found that current label directions on wood preservative products were too
vague to prevent continued soil and water contamination.
EPA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Four states from four Regions had various comments on EPA's financial
assistance. One state complained of delays in receiving grant funds, and another, in a
related vein, expressed concern over the slow congressional budget process. One state
remarked that its success in obtaining matching funds from the state legislature has
prevented them from receiving federal funds in the past.
27
-------
MISCELLANEOUS
Three states in one Region requested that EPA reassess the Section 18 review
process, saying that it is currently too cumbersome and that approval for state
exemptions should be faster. One state was disappointed with cancellation of EBDC as
potato seed treatment and of aerial applications to potatoes.
Another said that while the backlog of cases referred to the Region for review
and action has decreased, the Region is far from meeting its goal to take action on
these cases within 60 days of receipt. This state also suggested that EPA acknowledge
how the state contributes more than what is reflected in the present reporting system,
and that EPA should work with AAPCO to develop such a reporting system for "State
only" activity.
One State Program Director was frustrated with 55 gallon minimum for bulk
containers as well as with 2,4-D pad requirements.
28
-------
XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Forty-four of the reviews included Regional recommendations on how the state
or tribe could improve its performance. In three Regions, brief, bullet-like
recommendations were given, while recommendations from the other Regions tended to
be lengthier and more numerous.
Recommendations for each state and tribal program were grouped into different
categories according to the type of subject addressed. The categories included
recommendations for: A) procedural changes; B) updating grants-related documents;
C) improved performance; D) training; E) analytical; F) legislative or regulatory
changes; G) tracking/data systems; H) improved coordination within the state/tribe; and
I) increased coordination with EPA; and J) personnel changes. A few
recommendations fit into more than one category. The numbers within the parentheses
next to the titles indicate how many states or tribes received recommendations in that
area based on the forty-four FY 89 end-of-year reviews received by HQ. It was
interesting to note that many of the problems identified in previous sections of the
evaluation were not followed by specific recommendations to the state or tribe in the
recommendations section of the report.
A. PROCEDURAL CHANGES (25 states and tribes)
Recommendations for procedural changes in a state/tribal program ranged from
the development of a new inspectional form to suggested changes in a tracking system.
Virtually all the suggested changes pointed to weaknesses or potential problems with
the system itself, not with the quality of actions performed under that system.
Recommendations for procedural change have been grouped for the purposes of this
report into categories addressing similar problems: 1) documentation, 2) reporting;
3) tracking; 4) enforcement; and 5) inspections.
1. Documentation (6 recommendations)
Six reviews, three of which are from one Region, recommended changes
in the SLA's procedures for documenting violations. Four of them emphasized
the importance of collecting labels as part of a complete investigation. The two
other recommendations concerned better documentation of the receipt of
samples to show proper chain of custody and, in another state, to show if
samples were obtained from pesticides and devices that were packaged, labeled
and released for shipment.
2. Tracking (6)
29
-------
Six SLAs were recommended to change their data bases or their
procedures for tracking. One state was advised to develop a mechanism to
record enforcement actions taken on inspections and investigations conducted in
earlier quarters. Another state's files should denote if violations are federal or
state. It was recommended that one tribal group carefully track inspectional
activities for each of its member tribes and renegotiate if these tribes could not
meet projections.
3. Reporting (6)
Six SLAs in four Regions were asked to change their reporting
procedures. It was strongly recommended to one state to report all inspectional
outputs, not just enough to meet projected grant outputs; the Region argued
that this practice does give not an overall view of the state's progress compared
to other states. It was recommended to another state to re-examine with EPA
the state practice of including both state and federally funded inspections in
reporting agricultural use inspections. Another was advised to properly report
follow-up inspections and to speed up submissions of inspection reports to EPA;
another to consider adopting uniform inspectional procedures and reporting
formats; a fifth to submit quarterly reports on the 5700-33H form; and a six
state's lab was asked to provide a more detailed annual quality assurance report.
4. Enforcement actions (5)
Five SLAs in four different Regions were asked to change minor aspects
of their enforcement procedures. One state was advised to report violations at
the site of the inspections; another to review its protocol of assessing penalties
and to better document procedures for following the penalty matrix; a third state
was advised to institute a penalty worksheet documenting and providing a
rational for the proceedings; another SLA was asked to send all enforcement
correspondence by mail; and the fifth state was advised to begin an aggressive
enforcement program to track violations and take enforcement actions on
multiple violators.
5. Inspectional Procedures (5)
It was recommended to four states (two from one Region) that they
adjust various aspects of their inspectional procedures, including the following:
to have all investigation reports reviewed by the field supervises prior to being
finalized; to review more closely inspection reports to ensure consistency in
documentation and to reference all documentary samples taken in narrative
30
-------
reports; to consider discontinuing the use of the Miranda Warning in affidavit
forms; and to make general improvements in their inspection procedures. One
tribe was recommended to include brief narratives in their inspection reports.
B. GRANTS-RELATED DOCUMENTS (12)
It was recommended to seven SLAs that they amend or finalize their
Enforcement Response Policies or their penalty matrices; four SLAs (all of them in
one Region) were asked to revise Quality Assurance Plans; and only one state was
asked to develop a new priority-setting plan.
C. IMPROVED PERFORMANCE (10)
Specific recommendations to improve an SLA's performance in a particular area
numbered ten. Four SLAs were specifically advised to improve the quality of
documentation of violations. One state was advised to speed up the time it takes to
initiate an enforcement action. Two states were asked to review inspection reports
more carefully. One SLA was advised to improve the files; and one to communicate
better on product violations.
D. TRAINING (10)
There were ten recommendations for training in the reviews. Seven addressed
increased training for inspectors (three of them for tribes in one Region). It was
recommended to one state to educate the relevant staff in the proper handling of
pesticides; and for another to seek additional training for chemists.
E. ANALYTICAL (9)
Nine recommendations touched on issues relating to state labs. Two labs were
asked to speed up the time it takes to conduct sample analysis. Another lab's
performance was seriously below acceptable standards. Six labs were advised to review
procedures, with the states in one Region being specifically advised to revise or update
their QA plans.
F. LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY CHANGES (8)
Eight reviews contained recommendations to initiate, or complete some kind of
change in pesticide legislation or recommendations. These recommendations for states
included the following: to establish Administrative Civil Penalties; to vigorously pursue
amendments to state statutes to include civil penalties; to provide an update to EPA
on the status of submission of civil penalty package to the Governor; to simply
establish civil penalty authority; to amend their state's authority to issue minor
31
-------
enforcement actions and to revise the state plan in accord with 40 CFR changes; to
draft amendments (unspecified) to their pesticide law; and to continue efforts to pass
rules and regulations on recertification of private applicators.
G. TRACKING AND DATA COLLECTION (8)
Eight reviews contained recommendations on how to improve the quality and
reliability of tracking systems or data collection.
H. IMPROVED COORDINATION WITHIN THE STATE (7)
Seven reviews recommended that the SLA improve coordination with other state
agencies or within the SLA itself. Four states in one Region were advised to improve
in this area: to improve communications between different program and project staff
members; to accelerate planning of their role in the state if they plan to apply for
groundwater monies; strive to develop a working relationship with the state's
agricultural extension service; and to consider realignment of one of its bureaus to
assure expeditious resolution of cases. In other Regions, it was recommended to one
state to continue to participate on the different task forces and work with other state
agencies involved in groundwater protection. Another state was asked to continue to
coordinate and finalized its interaction with other agencies to avoid duplication of
effort.
I. INCREASED COORDINATION WITH EPA (7)
EPA recommended to seven states that they increase their
coordination/communication with Regional offices on various aspects of the state's
program, including the following: Regional involvement in reviewing sample jackets
and conducing joint inspecticr.;;; 2) EPA assistance in the development of training
material and training programs to assist the field inspectors; 3) establishment of a
single set of criteria for conducting State and EPA inspections; 4) continuing to work
with EPA to targeting producer inspections; i f continuing to work with EPA on the
new initiatives: 6) in the case of one state lab, the need to continue to interact with
EPA and NE~C to resolve problems of documentation; and 7) defining detailed
program responsibilities.
J. PERSONNEL CHANGES (6)
Five states and one tribe were given recommendations to either hire new
personnel or reorganize the s*. . Two reviews stressed the importance of maintaining
an adequate number of inspec jrs. Two states needed additional help with case
support activities; one review recommended that a case review officer be hired, v le
the second suggested that a field inspector be used part-time to review cases. Another
32
-------
review suggested that the state consider filling an administrative vacancy or create new
manager positions so as to improve the overall efficiency of the enforcement program.
An Indian tribe was recommended to put in a budget request for secretarial help.
33
-------
ATTACHMENT - DATA FOR FY 89 PESTICIDE END-OF-YEAR REPORTS
TABT.E of. CONTENTS
page
DATA FOR FY 89 END-OF-YEAR REPORTS ...................... . . . . . 1
MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM ........................................ 1
Identify any Significant Problems or Developments
Involving Coordination of the State Agencies
Involved in Enforcement, Certification, etc ........ 1
How have the Problems Raised in the Most Recent
Review been Addressed .............................. 3
Identify any Specific Cross-jurisdictional
Developments or Problems ........................... 6
Include a Description of any Formal Agreements such
as Memorandums of Understanding .................... 7
List the Enforcement Priorities in Order of
Precedence for Each State .......................... tf
Did the Regional Reviewer Indicate that any of the
State's Priorities were not Adressed by the State . 12
Did the State Indicate that its Proirities were Seriously
Effected by Seasonal Fluctuations, Emergencies, Changes
in Personnel or Other Extenuating Circumstances ... "3
INSPECTIONS l*
GENERAL COMMENTS
ANALYTICAL 27
MAINTAINING FILES AND TRACKING „ 30
FISCAL REVIEW 33
LEGISLATION 34
^
STATE PROGRAM NEEDS . 39
REVIEW OF EPA'S PERFORMANCE
RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
DATA FOR FY 89 PESTICIDE END-OF-YEAR REPORTS
The information for this worksheet is to be gathered from the
Regions' FY 89 End-of-Year Reviews of State pesticide enforcement
programs.
Region: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Reviews: ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, VI, PR, NY, NJ, MD, VA, DC, PA, WV,
DE, KY, AL, NCSPCD (Structural Pest Control Division), NCDA, MS,
TN, GA, FLDA (Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services) , FDHRS
(Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services), SC, MN, IN, MI, OH,
WI, LA, NM, AR, TX, OK, IA, KS, UT, ND, SD, CO, Pine Ridge (PR),
Rosebud (RB), Cheyenne River (CR), MO, AZ (S&P), AZ (A&H), CA, HI,
ITCA (Colorado River, Fort Mohave, Gila River, Quechan, Cocopah and
Salt River Tribes), Navajo, NV, WA, AK, OR, ID
MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM
1. Identify any significant problems or developments
involving coordination of the State agencies involved in
enforcement/ certification/ etc.
ME: Good coordination with the Cooperative Extension service in
regards to program planning and development.
RI: The Pesticide Relief Advisory Board appointed by the
legislature meets with the Director of the DEM and makes
recommendations regarding pesticide legislation and regs."
NY: Coordination being developed between BPN and Cornell
Cooperative Extension Service.
KY: Good relationship with the University of KY and County
Extension Agents. Cooperative effort with University of
Kentucky and county extension agents to update certification
tests and materials
Cooperation between KDA and State Health Dept., which contacts
KDA when pesticide related instances arise.
May be necessary to develop MOUs with neighboring states for
inter-state violation procedures.
AL: Beginning to coordinate groundwater pesticide program with
other state agencies.
"It appears ADAI has developed a good working relationship
with the state certification and training programs. The
program staff assists in certification activities such as
updating and developing training materials. The Department
is also beginning to coordinate the groundwater protection
program with other state local agencies."
NCSPCD: NCDA maintains close cooperation and collaboration with
Extension service updating training and testing materials.
NCDA: Close cooperation and collaboration with the Cooperative
Extension Service of the University of North Carolina have
aided in updating training and testing materials for
certification and recertification of applicators.
MS: Reviewer reports cooperative effort between SLA and the
Extension Service has begun to develop.
-------
TN: Healthy relationship between State Health Department and TDA.
GA: No problems — good coordination with Extension.
KS The applicant now has authority to restrict the use of
Pesticides in certain areas of the state. (should benefit
endangered species program)
ND: MOU between NDDA and Extension Service maintained; NDDA
and DOH work cooperatively on disposal. NPPA informs DOH of
container wastes observed.
SD: SDDA contracts certification training to the Cooperative
Extension Service; South Dakota State University provides
analytical support to state under contract with Dept. of
Health;
responsibility for pesticide accidents and emergency response
is shared among 11 possible agencies. An agreement exists for
one of four agencies, including SDDA, to take the lead
depending on the type of incident.
CO: program managers worked in cooperation with agricultural
producers..., Cooperative Extension Specialists, pesticide
applicators and industry representatives, in an effort to
evaluate and resolve misapplication of sulfonyl urea .
CR: "Occasional joint inspections are conducted on Reservation
with State inspector... using Tribal authority."
MT: "The montana State University Cooperative Extension Service
trains and determines the qualification of farm (private)
pesticide applicators; the Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences has been designated to set water
quality standards for the new agrichemicals in ground water
program."
AZ (S&P): AZ (S&P) along with the State Pest. Coordinator have
revised the (certification) test to make machine grade
AZ (A&H): Coordinated efforts of AZ ground water legislation
requires coordination between the Office of State
Chemist and Dept. of Env. Quality.
CA: Project Officer meets bi-monthly with CDFA liaison for
training and oversight inspections
HI: Not a MOU but ti.e dept. of ag assisted the dept. of
health in disposal program for household and farm haz.
waste.
ITCA: Functions as a coordinator among several tribes. Each
tribe negotiates with ITCA on the No.# of inspections
they will conduct.
Navajo: Pest Reg. program and the Drinking Water Program will
continue to exchange info on livestock dipping vats,
Drinking water well, and vulnerable ground water areas.
NV: Coordination between Coop. Ext. Service and Dept. of »a.
on info especially regarding violation rates and o- .r
data.
MD: Region/State interaction has been good, there were no
complaints
VA: There are currently no problems in the current Federal/State
relationship.
-------
2. How have the problems raised in the most recent review
been addressed by the State? Compare recommendations in FY 89 End-
of-Year Reports to those in FY 89 to see if there are continuing
problems that have not been adequately addressed by the state.
VI Region waiting for draft report on the ERP that was past due.
17% below no.# of projected inspections. Samples were 70%
below that projected. .Inspector position still vacant.
Problem obtaining petty cash for sample purchases. Lack of
safety equipment previously bought.
PR Turnover of inspectors is a persistent problem.
NJ: Repeated recommendations: Producer establishment inspections
need improvement; narratives were too short- brief and not
well documented; Section 18 and 24(c) inspections not meeting
projections.
MN: Review indicates that all 8 recommendations from FY 88 review
have been acted upon, but there is a similar recommendation
in 88 and in 89 to use 5700-33H form; lab still lacks list of
formulated products for which analytical methods don't exist
MI: ERP still needs to be amended, as recommended in 88 review
WI: WI still recommended to improve quality of reports, as in 88;
"... many of the significant issues that were outlined in the
FY 88 Year-End Evaluation of the FIFRA Cooperative Agreements
have been addressed by WDATCP during FY 89."
IL: Repeated recommendation in 89 to work closely with EPA in
targeting producer inspections; repeated recommendation that
labs should ensure up-to-date QA plans
KS: Program has improved considerably and should receive reduced
review. Some areas improved over the mid year review. Extra
effort by program management and staff could prove an
excellent inspection program. Additional attention to
statements and narratives. Too much time to prepare reports.
Too much time to complete enforcement actions. Certified
applicator record inspections need to be more fully completed.
MD: Continuing problems for Maryland in FY 87, FY 88, and FY 89
appear to be in reference to the turn-around-time on sample
analysis and the subsequent backlog.
VA: Long, consistent, turn-around-time for residue/formulation
sample analysis in FY 87, FY 88, and FY 89.
NH: "Revision of commercial examinations, for aquatic insect
control applicators at operational and supervisory levels,
originally targeted for FY 89, was completed in October."
NY: Confusion of how Ag use inspections should be conducted (issue
resolved)
LA: (1) Quarterly laboratory reports are being provided and
coordinated with EPA in a timely fashion.
(2) ISSUE: LDAF has not finalized their Enforcement Response
Policy as promised. Repeatedly, EPA has emphasized the
importance of this matter and during the FY 89 Mid-Year
Assessment it was requested to be received by October 31, 1989
but to no avail.
(3) ISSUE: The State still needs to rewrite their updated
-------
State Plan for Certification of Pesticide Applicators to
include categories for consultants and salespersons as well
as to include the new Federal regulation changes.
(4) The overall inspection and sampling accomplishments far
exceeded the FY 89 grant projections and the only shortage was
three Marketplace samples.
NM: (1) ISSUE: The Director/Secretary of NMDA has assured EPA
during the FY 89 final assessment that NMDA will try to obtain
civil penalty authority during the next 1990 legislative
session.
(2) Efforts to obtain a qualified and available legal
expertise as soon as possible has been a problem. The reason
is that the State statute says a State Agency cannot hire
their own attorney but they must come out of the Attorney
General Office. The Director plans to hire an assistant who
is also an attorney, so NMDA should have a qualified legal
assistant on their staff soon.
(3) The SLA feels that some inspections are strictly State
inspections and do not warrant a Notice of Inspection, however
a new form has been devised and will be issued now on all
inspections. It was pointed out that an NOI is required by
Federal law and would enhance State cases referred to EPA.
AR: (1) ISSUE: The recommendation that the State should contain
a copy of a label in a follow-up investigation report has
apparently not yet been adhered to.
(2) The State needs to follow through that the complaint
form, developed to facilitate gathering information concerning
citizen complaints of suspected misuse of pesticides, is
approved by the Board
(3) ISSUE: The State was to review the existing Penalty
Assessment Guidelines with regard to the Agricultural
use/follow-up investigations, PEI's, and Dealer Records
Inspections and ensure that current enforcement decisions are
made in the context of the guidelines or modify these policies
as necessary. This review has not yet been accomplished.
TX: (1) Efforts to revise the State Plan to provide
recertification of private applicators are underway.
(2) The SPCB has increased inspectional and legal resources
to address administrative penalties and other legalities
involved in pesticide enforcement.
(3) Pesticide Grant commitments have been met.
OK: (1) Each of the recommendations made during FY 88 E-O-Y
Report have been addressed.
(2) Agency has completed the number of PEI's projected.
IA: Sample results have longer delays at the time of the end of
year, than at the mid year review. Percentage of cases
reviewed during the end of year review were 17% more delays
in responding along the time-lines spell out in the ERP
UT: QA/QC manual was not drafted by end of fiscal year as set out
in mid-year review; did not improve tracking and filing and
documentation of violations
-------
ND: Most recommendations followed up on. Repeated recommendation
in 89 to improve accessibility to registration files and to
implement accurate protocol acceptable to state accounting
department. More work needed on quality of writing reports,
quality of written notification to violators, accessibility
of product labels, participation of program director in the
state ground water protection effort; NDDA did not follow up
on specific cases mentioned in previous review.
SD: Three out of four recommendations were met. "SDDA did not
observe the recommendation to involve Extension in FY 90
workplan development process."
CO: No recommendations made in previous review, but 88 end-of-
year review recommendations were addressed.
RB: Well.
CR: Fair. Documentation of violations improved; the problems of
legal representation and secretarial help was not solved.
MT: Well.
AZ (A&H): A portion of grant monies were recommended to be
shifted toward funding state labs. This was done by
increasing the award.
AZ (S&P): The establishment of a liaison to work with EPA will be
developed in the upcoming year
HI: Case development officer will direct inspection efforts
to those categories that are below projections to ensure
projections are being met.
NV: State has implemented recommendations from previous
evaluations.
WA: (1) WSDA has agreed to continue work on the dealer/distributor
neutral inspection scheme.
(2) Development of a standard operating procedure to cover
program policies and procedures was discontinued in FY 89 due
to increased workload of higher priority. Both NIS and SOPs
are scheduled for development during the FY 1990 grant year.
(3) Issue: Timely completion of investigation reports continue
to be a problem. The department's reorganization has created
a shortage of trained investigators. It is anticipated that
a backlog of cases will result until wsda can fill vacancies
and train new investigators.
AK: ADEC has made arrangements with the Washington State
Agricultural Lab to run Alaska's pesticide enforcement
samples. In the past the integrity of Alaska pesticide
samples collected and analyzed has been questioned by EPA.
This action resolves this concern.
OR: The State has addressed the following recommendations made
during the previous Review:
(1) Timeliness of laboratory analysis has been addressed by
the funding of an additional chemist for FY 91, transferring
10 - 15 samples to NEIC for analysis, and new residue analysis
equipment likely will facilitate residue sample analysis.
(2) Import inspection coordination has been discussed among
the State and Region.
(3) A public participation program has been developed and
-------
incorporated into the 1990 Cooperative Agreement.
(4) Region 10 is and will be placing greater emphasis on
working with the Department to support their program and less
on traditional oversight activities.
ID: State has upgraded the strength of evidentiary documentation
in inspection reports.
ISDA was very cooperative on Section 27 cases referrals during
FY 89. The Bureau did a thorough job of notifying EPA Region
X about potential significant cases for possible referral and
also consulting with the Region before commencing enforcement
action on these cases.
Improved communication between ISDA and Region X regarding
unregistered or misbranded products found in the marketplace
or in applicator's stocks.
3. Identify any specific cross-jurisdictional developments
or problems (between states and tribes, state agencies, states and
states, states and feds, etc.)
VT Dept. of Ag inspectors are also trained to collect water
samples as part of the Department's Well Monitoring program.
RI: The DEM meets with Rhode Island State Extension service on a
biweekly basis, as well as with the Hazardous Materials
Division of DEM (for development of air and disposal regs),
the Groundwater Protection Division of DEM and the Water
Resources Division of the Rhode Island Dept. of Public Health.
Program Coordination with US Dept. of Defense permitting DOD
personnel to monitor the applications the property in
accordance with this agreement.
NY Not all regions are processing cases uniformly
TN: "During routine inspections, FDA or TDA may receive
information which indicates the other agency should become
involved. It is very important in order for enforcement
activities to proceed in the most productive manner, that the
two agencies cooperated by informing each other as soon as
possible to facilitate the coordination of inspection
schedules. It may be necessary to develop a MOU between the
two agencies as exists between EPA and FDA."
"TDA had a special project to examine Certification
Reciprocity in Region IV and explore the possible development
of a plan to combine exam information from all Region IV
states into a common pool of questions. These could then be
used by all states independently, resulting in a certification
process that would then be satisfactory allowing applicators
to operate freely between states."
SC: "All potential cross-jurisdictional situations in SC have been
avoided through the development and maintenance of close
working relationships with several state agencies..."
TX: A recent opinion involved an issue between the Structural Pest
Control Board and the Texas Department of Agricultural on who
had the authority to license, certify, and regulate
-------
applicators of termaticides who do not work for commercial
pest control businesses but who wish to apply for a Federal
restricted use or a State restricted pesticide in non-
agricultural settings.
ND: Reviewer recommends cooperation with Ft. Berthold to ensure
consistent program within state boundaries.
Navajo: Reorganization of the Tribal agencies, the Division of
Resources and the Division of Water Resources were
merged into the Division of Natural Resources with a
mandate to manage Navajo resources to the maximum benefit
of the Navajo Nation.
WA: Good working relationship exists between the various parties.
However, a move toward formal written agreements appears to
be advocated instead of the traditional verbal agreements
between the State and the Indian tribes.
AK: Not addressed in the report.
OR: The Oregon Legislature has established the Pesticide
Analytical and Response Center (PARC) as a mechanism for
coordinating investigation of pesticide complaints involving
human health or environmental effects among various State
agencies. The Department is a member of PARC and Departmental
inspectors conduct investigations as requested by the Director
of PARC.
4. Include a description of any formal agreements such as
Memorandums of Understanding.
KY: Reciprocal agreement in place between Kentucky and Indiana as
well as Tennessee regarding certification.
LA: LDAF coordinates with other States and Federal agencies in
carrying out their commitments to maintain an effective
enforcement and certification and training program. Plans are
underway in the State's new Food Safety Plan and LDAF is
working with various agencies such as FDA, LDH, and possibly
US DA to mesh together the MOUs needed. On the groundwater
plan, LDAF is working with LDEQ and the U.S. Geological Survey
on a Statewide advisory committee and each agency will
contribute to the overall Plan. Necessary MOUs are also in
the works.
NM: The Agency is considering doing an MOU with the State Highway
Department regarding licensing. There are MOUs with several
agencies (such as USDA's Animal Damage Control and U.S. Forest
Service) regarding training testing and licensing) . NMDA also
has a cooperative agreement with the Navajo Agricultural
Products Industries.
TX: One recent MOU developed was between the Texas Department of
Agricultural (TDA) and the Texas Department of Corrections
(TDC). TDC agreed to conduct inspections as deemed necessary
to determine whether Federal/State pesticide laws and
standards are currently being met in the State's Prisons.
It is anticipated that sometime in 1990, there will be efforts
to establish a MOU with the Texas Water Commission (TWC)
-------
relating to ground water.
ND: see #1
SD: see #1
WA: Currently a verbal agreement exists with the WSDA and the
Yakima Indian Tribal Council which allows the WSDA to come on
to the reservation land and enforce State law. A formal MOU
between the two parties is anticipated for FY 91. It is also
anticipated that a formal MOU will exist between WSDA and the
USDA Extension Service with regards to pesticide training.
WSDA currently has MOUs1 with the State Department of Ecology
and Department of Health to develop and implement an
agricultural chemical in ground water management plan and with
the Washington Department of Labor and Industries for the
purpose of defining roles and responsibilities of each party
for the protection of workers from pesticide exposure.
OR: The Department is entering into a MOU with the Oregon Health
Division and the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health
Division regarding investigation of cases involving pesticides
and referral of those cases to the appropriate agency when
violations are suspected.
5. List the enforcement priorities provided in the end-of-
year reviews in order of precedence/ if possible, for each state
and tribe.
VT: "Previous priority areas included off target drift,
groundwater contamination, disposal of obsolete pesticides and
triple rinsing of containers and disposal of rinsates... Based
on recent findings of a number of use violations by PCO's, the
state is directing more of an enforcement effort in the area."
KY: Priorities not ranked: Monitor canceled and suspended
pesticides in pesticide use areas, strengthen enforcement
activities regarding the investigation of alleged pesticide
misuse and continued routine monitoring efforts, right-of-
way incidents, PEI inspections, updating educational
materials, training needs, C&T updates.
AL: Priorities not ranked: Monitor cancelled and suspended
pesticides and strengthened enforcement activities regarding
misuse of pesticides by pest control operators and
ground/aerial applicators; groundwater contamination by
pesticides; disposal of pesticide containers and rinseat.
NCSPCD: 1) help ensure compliance with major pesticide reg.
actions in pesticide use areas; 2) maintain current level
of compliance monitoring with respect to applicators
engaged in structural pest control industry; protect
domestic animals, ensure public health.
NCDA: 1) help ensure compliance with major pesticide regulatory
actions; and 2) plan for implementation and enforcement
of the revised Worker Protection Standards for pesticides
and associated labeling requirements; assure public
health, protect domestic animals, and prevent and/or
eliminate the indiscriminate and unlimited use of
pesticides that may pose a serious adverse environmental
8
-------
effect.
TN: "The department monitored canceled and suspended pesticides
in pesticide use areas under its purview. They strengthened
enforcement activities regarding the investigation of alleged
pesticide misuse and continued routine monitoring efforts.
GA: 1) Cancellations/suspensions; 2) Planning for worker
protection enforcement; 3) Misuse in and around home; 4) Drift
complaints; 5) Sale of RUPs to uncertified applicators.
FL: Ag-use followups and no-ag-use followups; other priorities not
identified in review.
FLDHRS: Cancelled/suspended pesticides.
SC: 1) Education to prevent violations involving illegal sale or
use of canceled, suspended and/or restricted pesticides, and
stop sale use or removal orders issued under Section
3(c)(2)(B)., and compliance with the provisions of FIFRA,
SCPCA, and the SC chemigation law; 2) Improper or unnecessary
use by PCOs; 3) education and enforcement against misuse
resulting in groundwater contamination; 4) involuntary
exposure to homeowners to termaticides; 5) appropriate
responses to non-priority complaints; 6) drift and worker
exposure.
MN: From FY 89 application: 1) Improper handling and storage, 2)
groundwater monitoring for pesticides, 3) pesticide drift and
over-spray concerns, 4) pesticide container disposal, 5)
purchase of restricted-use pesticides by, or for use by
individuals not properly certified; 6) structural pest
control, commercial turf care, and aerial applicators; 7)
cancellation compliance inspection.
IN: 1) Planned use investigations of lawn pest control industry;
2) below standard application techniques by structural pest
control industry; 3) planned use investigations of the
structural pest control industry to ensure compliance with the
requirement to register technicians; 4) misuse that could
result in the exposure of ground water to pesticides; 5)
disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers; 6) runoff
from pesticide storage and loading facilities; 7) marketplace
inspections for the purpose of regulating ultrasonic pest
control devices, electrocution devices, water treatment
devices and swimming pool products; 8) improper sale,
distribution, and use of recently restricted, suspended or
cancelled pesticides; 9) bulk handling and distribution
facilities; and 10) drift and overspray
MI: 1) Compliance monitoring of nationally suspended and/or
cancelled pesticide registrations; 2) unauthorized sales of
RUPs by dealer establishments; 3) drift; 4) misuse that may
result in point source or non-point source pollution of ground
and surface water; 5) worker protection; 6) compliance
monitoring of major spray programs; 7) surveillance of
pesticide use at nursing homes, schools, city park
departments, and county road commissions; 8) misuse in urban
areas; 9) disposal of pesticides and containers.
OH: 1) Misuse by structural pest control operators; 2) drift; 3)
-------
disposal of containers; 4) storage and transportation of bulk
pesticides; 5) RUP dealer inspections; 6) suspended,
cancelled, nonregistered or recently restricted pesticide
products; 7) ODA's Gypsy Moth Quarantine and Control Program;
and 8) Surveillance of structural PCOs to ensure that
chlordane is not being used.
LA: The significant priorities in the pesticide use/misuse
activities were ranked as follows: (a) aerial application at
agricultural sites; (b) surveillance of pest control
operators: and (c) agricultural incidents not involving
applications of pesticides. The State's highest priorities in
non-use related activities were as follows: (a) regular
market place monitoring; and b) regular conduct of training
programs and public participation in regulatory programs.
The National enforcement priorities, as outlined in the FY 89
Grant Guidance, have been incorporated in the State's
workprogram.
NM: The significant priorities in the pesticide use/misuse
activities were ranked as follows:
(a) Damage caused by pesticides moving off target;
(b) Misuse by pest control operators during structural
applications at residential sites;
(c) Incidents involving other urban applications;
(d) Improper storage, transportation, and disposal; and
(e) Involuntary exposure of homeowners, agricultural workers
or applicators to pesticides.
The State's highest priorities in non-use related groups were
as follows:
(a) Producer establishments;
(b) marketplace establishments;
(c) monitoring the certification program in Applicator
License/Records Inspections and Dealer Restricted Use
Pesticide Records Inspections; and
(d) Commercial Applicator Liability Insurance Requirements.
TX: The significant priorities identified in the non-use priority
setting plan are as follows:
(a) prior violators;
(b) those not inspected the previous year;
(c) dealers who did not relicense; and
(d) volume of sales.
In pesticide use, the priorities are still in the agricultural
area. The pesticide priority plans are updated annually.
OK: Significant priorities identified in the State's priority
setting plan are as follows:
(a) Nonagricultural applicators (structural pest control-
termaticides) and agricultural applicators (aerial-
phenoxy herbicides).
UT: 1) Home misuse of 2,4-D; 2) Disposal of Pesticide Wastes and
Containers 3) groundwater protection 4) major regulatory
10
-------
actions 5) drift 6) develop Endangered Species Program
ND: Disposal of Pesticide Wastes and Containers in coordination
with RCRA; groundwater protection; uniform implementation of
State Pesticide Act;
SD: Misuse by PCOs in homes; Bulk handling and distribution
facilities; storage of Pesticides and containers; disposal of
Pesticide waste and containers; drift; proper licencing and
recordkeeping;
CO: develop enforcement program for storage of pesticides and
containers; upgrading of laboratory facilities; maintain
comprehensive administrative evaluation program; review pest.
applicators Act in accordance with 1990 Sunset provision and
regulatory review; drift caused by commercial applicators
PR: priorities set by Region by negotiation with tribe
RB: priorities set by Region by negotiation with tribe
CR: priorities set by Region by negotiation with tribe
AZ (S&P): pretreatment facilities
Bad public opinion
Changes in Administrative procedures
NV: High no.# of violative products being held or sold
Navajo: Livestock dipping locations
WA: The following are WSDA's enforcement priorities:
(1) agricultural aerial insecticide drift/misuse;
(2) agricultural aerial phenoxy herbicides drift/misuse;
(3) groundwater contamination;
(4) agricultural ground phenoxy herbicide drift/misuse;
(5) PCO misuse cases (including both structural and other in-
structure pest control);
(6) agricultural ground insecticide drift/misuse;
(7) ornamental/residential pesticide drift/misuse;
(8) aerial/ground forest environment misuse;
(9) farmworker exposure;
(10) cancellation compliance inspection;
(11) aquatic use/misuse;
(12) product problems (misbranding, etc.)
(13) storage/transportation/disposal problems;
(14) pesticide use problems associated with major spray
programs;
AK: The following are Alaska's enforcement priorities:
(1) Disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers;
(2) Groundwater contamination;
(3) Pesticide misuse;
(4) Endangered Species concerns;
(5) Suspended and cancelled pesticide products;
(6) Restricted-use pesticides; and
(7) Greenhouse inspections.
OR: The general policy of the Department has been the
investigation of all alleged pesticide misuse situations and
inappropriate pesticide distribution situations brought to its
attention. In general terms, the Department has ranked
investigative activities as follows:
(1) PARC investigations (human and environmental concerns);
11
-------
(2) Report of Loss investigations;
(3) Investigation of other specific public concerns;
(4) Intra-departmental referrals
(5) EPA Referrals
(6) Referrals from other State agencies;
(7) Followup to other investigations;
(8) Routine investigations as .detailed in EPA agreement
(9) Routine investigations as detailed in the Oregon Revised
Statutes; and
(10) Other investigations
ID: State priorities have been identified as follows:
(1) Drift;
(2) Urban Sprayers;
(3) Disposal;
(4) Misapplication;
(5) Suspended/Cancelled Products; and
(6) Chemigation
VA: Virginia's enforcement priorities are the following:
(1) Non-agricultural industry;
(2) Right-of-way applicator; and
(3) Lawn care companies
(4) Virginia is being asked to conduct more pesticide
monitoring programs related to food safety.
DC: DC's enforcement priorities are the following:
(1) Use/misuse activities;
(2) Applicator/Operator license record inspection; and
(3) Disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.
PA: Pennsylvania's enforcement priorities are the following:
(1) Home yard incidents;
(2) Urban incidents;
(3) Right-of-way;
(4) Ag. incidents; and
(5) Woodland
(6) PA has begun to check barber and beauty shops for products
which are not properly labeled.
WV: West Virginia's enforcement priorities arc che following:
(1) Non-agricultural industry;
(2) Pest Control operators;
(3) Right-of-way applicators; and
(4) Lawn care companies.
DE: Delaware's enforcement priorities are as follows:
(1) Agricultural drift;
(2) Lawn care applications;
(3) Groundwater contamination; and
(4) Pesticide residues in food.
6. Did the Regional reviewer indicate that any of the State's
priorities were not addressed by the State?
RI: "The goals established by their priorities as listed in ^:he
Cooperative Agreement are being addressed although limited by
a * mck of personnel."
TN: ou-3uts did not always meet projections
12
-------
IN: yes, see # 7
UT: Yes. Accomplishments do not reflect program consideration of
priorities on misuse of 2,4-D by homeowners, disposal and
drift.
RB: yes, the tribe did not meed their projected number of
inspections in most of the inspection categories. This was due
to the learning curve of the new inspector.
CR: yes
CA: Use of "triggers" to initiate action was not clear as to
how inspections are selected.
Priorities far exceed request
7. Did the State indicate that its priorities were seriously
effected by seasonal fluctuations, emergencies/ changes in
personnel or other extenuating circumstances? If so, explain.
VI The Governor of the VI imposed a hiring freeze which would not
allow filling the inspector position on St. Thomas.
PR Continuous turnover of inspectors results in achievements
below projections- not resolved.
Deficient in experience for case review officer and
supervisory inspector
PR: Hurricane Hugo forced the End of yr. evaluation to be
conducted via telephone, in addition to delaying work
projected for the project.
NCSPCD: "...the Division was under-staffed by one inspector for
a period of 5 months during the latter part of FY89."
TN: "Accomplishments were considerable behind projections at the
Mid Year point, due to the fact that at the end of first
quarter and the beginning of the second quarter, all
inspectional activities came to a virtual standstill while
fiscal procedures were studied and amended."
FLDHRS: State did not receive sufficient number of complaints to
meet projected non-ag follpwups.
IN: disparity between the projected and accomplished numbers of
inspections due to personnel loss and reorganization.
MI: personnel changes and increased workload on existing staff
made it difficult to achieve all of its projections.
LA: The Director commented that they have not yet looked at Worker
Protection yet. LDAF's FY 90 Workprogram commits to the
development of program activities to address the revised
agricultural Worker Protection Standard.
ND: Small staff and lack of administrative support make it
difficult for inspectors to provide an adequate enforcement
presence.
PR: less number of agriculture and structural use inspections
carried out at beginning of the year due to the large number
of compliant inspections carried out.
RB: time spent training new inspector made it difficult to address
all priorities.
CR: "1989 was a drought year in the Dakotas; consequently, fewer
pesticide applications were made in 1989 than in normal years.
Further, the Tribe's Pesticide Officer resigned in the fourth
13
-------
quarter of FY 89 to accept another Tribal position."
MO: Loss of personnel effected quality of program.
AZ (S&P): Struggling to survive after years of operating under a
crisis situation from accusations of mismanagement.
AZ (A&H): Undergoing a 6 month state audit mandated by legislature
ITCA: Personnel turnover is the primary reason for not
attaining enforcement priorities
AK: The Exxon Valdez spill put a significant strain on
Washington's pesticide program. The forward momentum that the
program tried to maintain was slowed.
MD: No, but it was recommended that the State should carefully
review its priority setting process to target inspections
toward high harm hazard areas, probably non-ag. use.
VA: The program staff underwent, in FY 89-90, a reorganization
which has created an Office of PEsticide Management under the
Division of Product & Industry Regulation. Agricultural and
aerial applicators are also on the increase.
DC: No, however, DC has had difficult time keeping staff members,
particularly inspectors.
INSPECTIONS
8. For each type of inspection, list those states/tribes that
did not meet projected outputs, providing the number accomplished
versus the number projected (x/y) and documenting the reasons given
for not meeting the projections.
Producer Establishment Inspections:
ME
VT: 0/2
RI: 1/4
VI 168/300;
PR 4/12
MS: Completed 21 out of 25 completed.
FLDA: Completed 231 out of 352 projected
IN: completed 12 out of 15;
MI: completed 22 out of 30
OH: completed 183 out of 200 projected
UT: completed 6 out of 8 projected, since follow-up investigations
doubled the # projected.
ND: 6 out of 8 projected
AZ (A&H) 2/3
WV: No reason cited. 11/15
Marketplace Inspections:
NCDA: The discrepancy in the Market Plan occurred as a result
of the States only targeting these establishments which
revealed EPA suspected violations; i.e., not done unless
violation suspected. 19/30
IN: completed 240 out of 250 projected
PR: completed 9 out of 16 projected
RB: completed 10 out of 16 projected
14
-------
CR: completed 2 out of 12 projected
WV: No reason cited. 33/35
Ft. Mohave: 1/2
Salt River: 1/4
Agriculture Use:
NH: completed 5 out of 8
MA: 2/15
RI: 12/30
PR 64/81
NY 21/54
MS: Completed 45 out of 50 projected
FLDA: Completed 142 out of 220 projected
KS: 4/60
CR: completed 1 out of 20 projected; 1989 was a drought year,
which meant fewer pesticide inspections; inspector quit in 4th
quarter.
PR: completed 15 out of 17 projected.
RB: completed 14 out of 18 projected
WA: Not specifically mentioned, but reorganization did take place
within the Department in 1989. 7/16
MD: No reason cited. 6/16
WV: No reason cited. 9/10
AK: 1/6
SALT RIVER: 51/77
Agriculture Follow-up:
NH: completed 12 out of 22
MA: 1/10
RI: 1/4
VI: 0/10;
NY 24/39
WI: completed 60 out of 80 projected
WV: 9/10
KS: 44/60
Non-Ag Use:
MA: 16/40
RI: 45/60
VI: 15/35;
PR: 36/68
TN: "This was due to the loss of three pest control employees."
OH: completed 17 out of 30
WI: completed 11 out of 16 projected
MO: 39 completed out of 44 projected. "This is a number that
cannot be accurately projected since it is dependent on the
number of complaints received."
ND: 5 out of 6 projected
PR: completed 33 out of 53 projected
CR: completed 43 out of 47 projected
WA: Not specifically mentioned, but reorganization did take place
within the Department in 1989. 6/8
DC: Lack of adequate staff. 46/50
Colorado River: 3/13, due to high number of ag-use inspections.
Gila River: 4/16
15
-------
Quechan: 1/8
Salt River: 1/8
Non-Ag Use Follow-up:
ME: completed 10 out of 12
MA: 35/65
VI 0/20
NCSPCD: completed 65 out of 72 projected. "Non-Ag Follow-up
inspections are dependent upon consumer complaints, a
situation over which the Division has no control. In addition
it should be pointed out that the Division was under-staffed
by one inspector for a period of 5 months during the latter
part of FY 89."
MS: Completed 22 out of 25 projected.
FLDHRS: 36 out of 60 projected, due to low number of complaints
SC: 15 out of 16 projected
IN: completed 52 out of 65 projected
KS: 43/60
MT: 13 out of 15 projected. "The number of followup inspections
is difficult to project."
DC: 13/17
Experimental Use:
ME: 0/2
NH: 0/2
VT: 1/4
RI: 0/2
PR 0/2;
NY 5/6
FLDA: completed 17 out of 28 projected
SC: completed 3 out of 8 projected
IN: completed 0 out of 5 projected
NM: The State had projected four inspections but did not have an
occasion to perform any during FY 89. 0/4
UT: 1 out of 3 projected. No reason given for shortfall in
review.
AZ (A&H) 2/4
WA: Not specifically mentioned, but reorganization did take place
within the Department in 1989. 0/2
MD: No reason cited. 1/2
VA: No reason cited. 4/5
WV: No reason cited. 2/4
KS: 2/4
Colorado River: 1/3
Import:
ME: 0/1
VI 14/15
AZ (A&H) 0/1
FLDA: completed 6 out of 12 projected.
Pesticide Dealer:
NH: completed 17 out of 23
MA: 18/20
PR 64/92
16
-------
SC: completed 270 out of 300 projected
CR: completed 4 out of 8 projected
HI 64/80
WA: Not specifically mentioned, but reorganization did take place
within the Department in 1989. 19/25
AK: No reason cited in the report. 0/3
KS: 108/116
Colorado River: 1/2
Certified Applicators
PR 127/136
OH: completed 215 out of 300 projected
IL: completed 24 out of 50 projected. "Because of other
priorities, (e.g. Alar, food safety, insecticide chalk, etc.)
IDA completed only 24 RUP inspection during the fiscal year."
MT: 41 out of 60 projected. "This was apparently a planning
oversight since 44 State inspections were conducted as well;
many of which could have been conducted as Federal
inspections."
AZ(A&H): 27/50
CA: 59/70
HI: 28/50
AK: 0/3
Gila River: 6/16
Quechan: 0/4
Details on above:
MA "... due primarily to a fiscal crises which affected state.
As a result, the staff has been seriously depleted. This
coupled with hiring freeze has created a serious personnel
shortage in the Bureau. The State did not request amending
their output, because they did not anticipate the inability
to hire replacement personnel."
VI no.# of inspections completed did not meet the no.# projected
due to the vacant inspection position on St. Thomas. -14%
PR due to inspector turnover
NY Confusion as to how these (AG. use) should be conducted, (this
has been resolved).
KY: Accomplishments considerably ahead of
projections (1549 projected/ 5210 accomplished).
AL: Accomplishments exceeded projections.
NCDA: An increased number of outputs were (approx. 3 times
projections) reported in the categories of Agriculture and
Non-Ag. follow-up inspections/samples were due to the State
counting all inspections initiated prior to 9/30/89, not
previously reported. There was an apparent misunderstanding
of EPA's uniform reporting requirements. The problem has been
resolved.
TN: review did not include complete information on the type of
inspections projected versus the number completed.
GA: all projections met
FLDA: state far exceeded commitments in other categories;
consistent with priorities which give follow-ups top priority
at expense of other categories if appropriate.
17
-------
IN: competed 594 out of a total of 535 projected; shortfall in
some projections due to the loss of one inspector and a
shuffling of the others.
AR: All inspections and sampling commitments were met or exceeded.
TX: TDA exceeded the commitments in inspection and sampling.
OK: Inspection/sampling have been completed in a timely manner and
are acceptable. However, E-O-Y did not have attached Chart
1, listing the # of inspections projected and accomplished.
KS: had a very large no.# of complaints which took away from
commitments. Marketplace and RUP commitments were reduced due
to personnel having to take over administrative duties.
CO: "The program met or exceeded all certification and enforcement
activity projections."
ITCA: Overall pest, programs show low no.# of accomplished
inspections in the areas of Non-Ag., Certified applicator
and marketplace. Commitments were not met for most of
the tribes. Several tribes concentrated on Ag. use
inspections and completed far beyond those originally
projected. One of the tribes (Cocopah) did not have the
inspector position filled during '89. Ft. Mojave
exceeded their commitments by 200%.
OR: The number of inspections completed was significantly lower
than the number projected for agricultural use, experiments
use, and producing establishment inspections. During FY 89,
the Department changed from reporting the number of
inspections initiate to the number of inspections completed.
Inspections are considered completed when the inspection
report has been reviewed and found to be acceptable. This
change resulted in lower reported accomplishments this year.
By the end of FY 90, it is anticipated that this situation
will be rectified.
ID: ISDA came up short 2 use inspections due to a loss of two of
the four State inspectors for a few months during FY 89.
PA: All commitments were fulfilled.
WV: Although not every specific category of inspection and
sampling commitments were fulfilled, the total number of
inspections and samples were more than the commitment totals,
and many categories were well above the committed rate.
DE: No reason stated for the two categories that did not meet the
commitments. However, the total number of inspections (359)
were more than the predicted total (305).
9. Briefly note comments by the Regional reviewer, if any,
on the quality of the State's enforcement actions (for example:
Were warning letters well written?).
ME "Documentation included with each inspection file was found
to be well prepared and complete enabling the case reviewer
to systematically determine the merits of the case.
NH "Case files were found to be in good order, very well
documented for enforcement actions and consistent with EPA
policy. Violative cases were generally handled promptly
during DY 89 except when they were delayed awaiting the
18
-------
completion of sample analysis."
VT: "Enforcement actions taken by the state were appropriate and
timely and in conformance with existing state enforcement
policies." Of 143 inspections a total of 42 enforcement
actions were taken.
NJ Penalties are being assessed on a timely basis
PR Little experience in case development (sample jackets will be
sent to Region II once complete)
KY: Progress from previous years in violations ratio.
"Reorganization has allowed any backlog in case review to be
addressed. A management scheme has been put in place to
prevent any future backlogs from occurring."
AL: Operating within ERP. Good quality — all files include info
on prior violations.
NCDA: Lack of records violations result of 1) those violations
usually detected as result of use-related investigations,
therefore reported as use; 2) state record-keeping
requirements are minimal and generally do not result in
detection of violations.
MS: Violations ratio doubled from 11% to 20% from FY 89 to FY 90.
"MDAC is operating within the stated Enforcement Response
Policy and the quality of the enforcement actions continues
to improve.
TN: "It was noted that a few inconsistencies remain in the
Enforcement response Policy."
CjLDgt> quality of enforcement actions continues to be good
FLDHRS: "The Dept. is operating within the stated ERP, and the
quality of the enforcement actions continues to improve."
SC: "Case preparation is well done and the evidentiary quality is
generally good." Standard affidavit form amended to include
a Miranda warning, to be used only after a person had been
taken into custody." Dept. recommended adoption of a new
Enforcement matrix.
MN: MDA should cite information on violations/penalties for the
75 enforcement orders concluded in FY 89 as part of its ERP.
Percentage of enforcement actions very high.
MI: "both agencies worked on redrafting and strengthening the ERP
during the second quarter of FY 89, in order to remove the
•subjectiveness1 of the enforcement guidance document and
expand the violation type/gravity matrices."
OH: "The ODA has the ability to refer significant violations to
its Criminal Investigation Division for enforcement. The
Grant funds one position in the CID for the purpose of
enforcing state and federal pesticide laws... This program
continues to be very successful."
WI: "Enforcement actions taken by WDATCP during FY 89 also
increased, mainly due to an increase in the number of warning
letters issued to commercial application firms for failure to
maintain proper books and records."
OK: No major significant deficiencies.
IA: review included a graph which indicates a greater than 60%
deficiency in the state initiating enforcement actions within
19
-------
timeframes
UT: "Several cases which appeared to contain adequate evidence and
documentation of violations were left incomplete without any
indication of the Dept.'s intent to pursue remedies or
enforcement actions..."; Dept. apparently not following
penalty matrix; less than 10% of total enforcement actions
reported to EPA were verified by documents contained in case
files.
ND: "NDDA developed a new penalty matrix which included provisions
for record keeping and specific label violation." "Warning
letters should be issued immediately, not held until problem
has been corrected. Actionable inspections on ag. use
inspections surprisingly low (only 7 warning letters for 181
inspections). No reason given in review.
Unavailability of an attorney to address SDDA enforcement
issues delayed enforcement actions "SDDA cases are being
neglected" due to the attorney's "involvement in a large Dept.
of Water and Natural Resources' case"
"Attorney time is not always available, therefore, a
bottleneck develops during peak season periods when the number
of cases, etc., far exceeds the available legal staff."
"...since the accomplishment for inspections and
investigations are reported differently to the grant it is not
possible to establish an accurate relationship between the
number of inspections or investigations conducted and
enforcement actions taken by dept."
Trouble keeping up with case development load, since case
development officer position was lost several years ago due
to budget cuts. Bureau chief overwhelmed with work.
AZ (S&P): Has no authority to issue minor enforcement actions
very burdensome process
AZ (A&H): Case review was complete with sufficient evidence to
document violations.
CA: Excellent job in taking a large no.# of enforcement actions.
Ag commission has authority to issue civil penalties, but
their has been inconsistencies in penalties issued for the
same violation. EPA has provided initial guidance on when to
issue actions.
NV: Inspectors are increasing focus on information needed to
develop proper enforcement actions. Emphasis has been
placed on marketplace and producer estab. inspections
due to the history of violations.
WA: WSDA is following their enforcement response policy. There
are 1988 case reports that are still incomplete.
OR: Based on cases reviewed, it appears that the Department is
taking appropriate enforcement actions within the penalty
policy that was in effect during FY 89. However it was
suggested that the State consider changing the language on its
warning letters from requesting changing of compliance to more
stringent enforcement language.
ID: The Region found a significant number of cases where it seems
20
-------
that the Bureau is not consistently applying the penalty
matrix and issuing less stringent actions than the matrix
prescribes. The large number of cases where the Region and
Bureau differ in response selection indicates that better
guidelines and instructions for applying the matrix are
needed.
MD: Enforcement actions taken by the State were appropriate and
complied with the Maryland penalty matrix. The level of
enforcement actions compared to inspections was 4.3% as
compared with a regional average of 18.4%.
VA: Total enforcement actions during FY 89 total 104 which gives
a rate of 8.8%. While it is less than the Regional average
of 28.3%, the VDA is pursuing enforcement within the scope of
their present regulations and has shown an increase in
enforcement actions taken compared to FY 88 performance.
VDACS is revising their Enforcement Response Policy to
incorporate the new statutory provisions.
DC: There were a total of 217 inspections during the year, with
actionable inspections totaling 128. This gives an actionable
rate of 59%, compared with a regional average of 18.4%.
PA: Inspections totaled 864. Actionable inspections totaled 148,
which gave a rate of 17.1%, compared with a regional average
of 18.4%.
WV: Total actionable inspections were 7.1% of the total
inspections (382), compared with a regional average of 28.3%.
DE: Total inspections of 359 included 56 (15.6%) actionable
inspections, compared to a regional average of 28.3%.
10. Indicate with a check any deficiencies noted in the
general quality of the following inspectional and case review
activities listed below, specifying if possible in which type of
inspection the weakness was found. Comments might also address
any noteworthy or outstanding achievements.
a) Use of proper forms (ex. Notice of Inspection)
MN: In one non-ag followup inspection, NOI and Facility Inspection
from not used.
MI: "13 marketplace inspection files did not contain the correct,
complete compliment of official documents and the majority of
the inspections were not conducted uniformly by the inspectors
across the State."
NM: The forms and procedures used by the inspectors complied with
the EPA Inspector's Manual with the exception of the absence
of the Notice of Inspection forms which have not been use on
a routine basis. However, the SLA has a new Notice of
Pesticides Inspection form which is now being
ND: "Violations are frequently stated unclearly or are entirely
lacking on forms provided to the violator."
SD: Notice of inspections not always issued to owner, operator,
or agent in charge at each inspection site; forms should be
filled out completely; some misunderstanding of terms on the
forms (dilation rate, amount of diluted material per acre,
21
-------
etc.)' documents should be signed and dated.
MT: One inspectors has continued to use an outdated NOI form.,
which lacks a place to enter current inspection category
numbers.a
b) Use of proper sampling procedures (ex. Chain of Custody)
VA: See comment below.
WV: See comment below.
c) Proper documentation (photos,
naps, affidavits, etc.)
GA: documentation not always identified properly
SC: "Some inspectors were using specimen labels from the
Department's office files for Documentary samples. The
disadvantages of this practice was discussed with management,
along with the necessity of verifying the actual pesticide
applied by the user. The Department has begun the process of
changing its
MI: five PEI inspections so poorly documented they were not
included in the final count. Uniform completion of inspection
documents not methodically done by all the state inspectors.
MN: "collection of product labels for followup activities appears
to be reduced." "Significant information missing from a
number of the market place inspections included batch codes
or lot numbers present on the product containers sampled,
establishment of a link between the information on shipping
records and invoices to the products sampled, and narratives
on the preparation of samples collected."
OH: For MPIs, many inspection reports are lacking shipping
documentation. Some marketplace inspections did not contain
Dealer Affidavits, Invoices and/or Shipping Records, and
proper Receipt for Samples, even though physical samples were
obtained.
WI: "... methodical and uniform completion of the documents was
lacking."
AR: In general evidence gathered was adequate with the notable
exception of the lack of a product label. A photo of the
label or a suitable copy is vital to the successful
prosecution of a "use inconsistent with the label" type of
violation.
UT: "Inspectors not documenting their inspections of dealers or
marketplaces with NOIs; few case files contained photos or
other important evidence"
ND: maps not properly labeled or lack complete info; not all
observed violations documented.
PR: "... not all inspections properly documented. For example,
in the quarterly reports there are a total of 11 market
inspections recorded."
CR: "Violations need better documentation." CR "needs to make
more extensive use of photos, copies of invoices, affidavits,
samples and narrative descriptions."
MT: "Some cased were noted where the inspection form indicated a
possible problem, but not enough information was presented to
22
-------
evaluate whether an enforcement action was called for."
WV: discrepancies involved chain of custody records and
documentary samples.
DE: Inconsistencies on photographic evidence and its
authentication and incomplete documentary samples were
discovered upon review of the misuse investigation files.
d) Completeness of inspection
UT: "Several cases were closed on the basis of insufficient
evidence, yet investigation itself was incomplete."
WA: After review of a number of inspection reports it was noted
that several Marketplace inspection reports, Restricted-use
pesticide dealer inspection reports, agricultural, and
pesticide establishment inspection reports were not complete;
VA: See comment below.
Colorado River: More thorough inspections could be conducted in
cased such as pesticide exposure incidents, fish kills, drift
of pesticides over residential areas to determine the type of
violations that may have taken place.
e) Prompt response to complaints and tips
ND: Slow response to follow-up on cases
f) Timeliness of Inspection Reports
NY:
KS: Backlog of complaints
g) Quality of reports
WI: Statements as to whether or not producer facilities were in
compliance were used instead of concise, clear and objective
narratives on the observations made and the questions/answers
obtained during the inspection. Narratives of marketplace
inspections need to include 1) the type and extent of
pesticide marketing for each establishment; 2) compliance with
Title 40 CFR, Part 156; 3) compliance with major FIFRA
registration suspension and/or cancellation actions; 4)
compliance with changes in the classification of pesticide
products under FIFRA.
MI: A number of inspection files did not contain narratives for
an efficient case review and enforcement disposition.
UT: "Most case files were lacking narrative."
ND: "difficult to understand due to poor organization, inclusion
of irrelevant information, charts and maps frequently not
labeled or lack complete information"
MT: "In many cases, no descriptive information, beyond the
checklist, is provided."
Colorado River: Summary reports did not contain narratives or any
kind of description about the kind of inspection activities
taking place and about the site of the inspection itself.
h) Timeliness of Case Review
NY:
IA:
i) Enforcement Actions consistent
with enforcement response policy
23
-------
IA:
AZ (S&P):
NV:
j) Timely Enforcement actions
IA:
CO: bottle neck at attorney general's office develops during peak
season periods when the number of cases ready for review and
disposition far exceeds the available legal staff support
available to complete the process, expeditiously.
SD: unavailability of an attorney to address SDDA enforcement
issues. This problem stems from the attorney's involvement
in a large DWNR case. SDDA cases are being neglected during
this period since no one is assisting with the backlog.
k) Referrals from Region to State
LA: The turn around time on inspections has almost always been
adequate; however, there have been a couple of special request
referrals that were not completed and returned to EPA Region
VI in time to meet Headquarters' deadlines.
IA:
CA: Not adequately tracked and submitted
AZ (S&P):
NV:
1) Referrals from State to Region
OH: Several MPI cases "were forwarded to Region V to enforce label
violations. However, Region V is experiencing a backlog in
enforcement cases and has not yet taken action on these
cases."
OR: The backlog of cases referred to Region X for review and
action has improved somewhat. However, the Region is far from
meeting its goal to take action on these cases within 60 days
of receipt.
General Comments:
VT: "The quality of the cases was excellent and the files all well
organized."
RI: files well organized and proper inspectional and sampling
procedures were followed and investigations adequately documented.
NJ All inspection and sampling projections were either met or
exceeded (jackets well prepared)
PR all categories suffer due to the lack of a core inspection
program
NY: sample jackets were filled out correctly- but there was only
one for a recent inspection. Only one inspection was
completed over the past six months. Quality of sample jackets
improved over previous yrs.- but it was decided that regional
reviews and joint inspections would be made of '90.
KY: "With few exceptions, the case files generally met minimum
data requirements as negotiated diin the CEA. Inspectional
formats and reports developed at the mid year review in an
effort to standardize procedures and reporting have been very
24
-------
successful.
AL: "exceeded minimum data requirements as negotiated in the
Cooperative Agreement."
NCSPCD: "The case files met or exceeded minimum data requirements
as negotiated in the CEA and were of good quality."
NCDA: "The files were found in most instances to be complete
and in good order." "...all other case files reviewed
appeared to meet the minimum data requirements." The
state recordkeeping requirements for dealers and
applicators are minimal and generally do not result in
the detection of many violations."
MS: files reviewed met or exceeded the minimum data requirements
as negotiated in the cooperative agreement.
TN: "With few exceptions, the case files generally met minimum
data requirements as negotiated in the CEA."
FLDA: Reviewer said reports of high quality.
FLDHRS: "Case files reviewed met or exceeded the minimum data
requirements as negotiated in the cooperative agreement."
IN: reviewer reports that all types of inspections adequately
performed.
LA: The State continues to do a good job of compiling cases with
all necessary documentation and photographs intact.
NM: The State does a good job of compiling enforcement cases with
all necessary documentation and photographs intact.
AR: The enforcement outputs were reviewed and there were no
deficiencies in the enforcement accomplishments.
TX: Twenty case files were selected at random for review and all
had adequate documentation to support enforcement actions at
the Federal and State levels.
Overall, inspectional and case activities appear to be
excellent.
OK: No major significant deficiencies.
AZ (S&P): all cases no matter how minor must be presented before
the seven member commission
HI: One firm was inspected four times within 30 days. This
need to be discussed with the inspector to avoid this in
the future.
CA: special request have not been completed in a timely manor
NV: Dept. of ag. was using a 3 yr old ERP policy that was
submitted for comment by the attorney generals office.
As of this review a new/revised policy was submitted
Navajo: Inspection Reports are adequately filled out.
OR: Overall, the quality of the inspection reports that were
randomly selected were good. However, it was suggested that
the State should consider developing a notice inspection form
for use and misuse investigations. Based on the cases
reviewed, it appears that the minimum standards for
inspectional activities are being met or exceeded.
ID: Based upon the inspection evaluations, most reports met
applicable FIFRA procedures.
MD: The quality of the inspection reports that were randomly
selected were good.
25
-------
VA: Review of files indicated a lack of documented chain of
custody for samples, lack of written statements by
interviewers, inconsistencies on photographic evidence and its
authentication, and incomplete documentary samples.
DC: A review was made of the misuse investigation files. They
were found to be complete and properly documented. Files were
also reviewed for producer establishment, market place, and
dealer record inspections.
PA: Files appeared to be complete and properly documented.
11. What is the average time taken to respond to complaints
of pesticide violations?
MA: "adequate"
RI: "sufficient"
NCDA: 1-2 days
LA: "Adequate"
NM: Adequate and within timeframes set by EPA on referrals.
AR: "Timely and satisfactory"
TX: "Prompt"
OK: "Reasonable"
IA: 3.6 days
SD: approximately 2 to 3 days
AZ (S&P): 2 days maximum
WA: Usually within 2 days.
ID: Usually within 2 or 3 days.
MD: 1.4 days
VA: 2.9 days
DC: 1.0 days
PA: 3.0 days
WV: 4.3 days
DE: 1.7 days
12. List any inspection or related forms developed by the
State.
NH: Revised the private applicator examination and developed a new
supervisory level commercial class examination for turf pest
control applicators.
ME: Revised Core Level examination for applicators, adopted the
Pennsylvania Core Level Training Manual, revised to meet
Maine's needs, and development of several new subcategory
training manuals. GA: state forms currently under revision
(reviewer does not say what forms) ; state inspectors manual
also being revised;
SC: revised criminal and civil affidavit forms, providing place
for the title of the person giving statement.
MI: new inspectional form developed in '89 allowing for more
thorough documentation of pesticide use (included as
att .chment to review)
NM: Tht State has developed a new Notice of Pesticides Inspection
form which is now being utilized on all inspections.
AR: A complaint form has been developed to facilitate gathering
26
-------
information concerning citizen complaints of suspected misuse
of pesticides.
TX: New State forms, (4), have been developed for use by the field
inspectors. All four forms are acceptable by EPA for use in
the enforcement program.
OK: State is developing guidelines for handling pesticide waste
and rules/regulations for handling "Hazardous Waste"; also,
State has developed an environmental complaint program which
encompasses several State agencies. This directs complaints
to the proper agency for investigation and follow-up so that
complaints are brought to a proper conclusion.
ID: ISDA has developed a new marketplace inspection form.
ANALYTICAL
13. Check if there were any problems noted in the following
areas/ and then elaborate/ if possible.
a) Completeness of Laboratory Reports:
UT: Lab needs to improve documentation procedures related to
chain-of-custody.
b) Timeliness of Sample Analysis (turn around time)
KY: "not optimum"; "delayed" "...turn around times have not been
optimum and samples have been delayed."
NCDA: "o.k."
MI: 3 months for formulation samples, 2 months for residues. A
few of the formulation samples were pending at year-end,
because the lab did not have suitable methodology for the
analysis of the active ingredients.
AR: Inspections and sample analyses have been completed in a
"timely fashion and are acceptable".
OK: Completed in a timely fashion and are acceptable.
IA: 85 days. Many did not meet the 45 day turn around
KS: 45 day maximum, 41 day average. They have been functioning
within the required 45 day turn around time but more samples
are coming in so they may fall behind.
AZ (A&H): within 6 months
HI: Formulation 1-2 weeks, residue 2 weeks
NV: 13 day ave.
WA: "Turnaround time has not been a problem." The WSDA laboratory
has requested that product samples be collected and submitted
for analysis during the winter months when there is no backlog
of residue samples.
OR: Analytical activities cannot be accurately evaluated based on
random sampling of cases for review. The review indicates
that analytical timeliness may be improving but one analysis
took over six months to complete. The EPA check sample
program indicates that analytical results continue to be
excellent.
MD: 35.5 days (this was due in part to a long term illness of one
of the residue chemists); Formulation time - 14.2 days.
27
-------
VA: 42.7 days for residue chemistry; 59.2 days for formulation
lab. Both the formulation and residue labs continue to
perform poorly in providing laboratory support for the
pesticides program. Several samples were processed so slowly
that the results could not be considered reliable and possible
enforcement actions were dismissed on the basis of inadequate
laboratory data. A concern has been raised as to whether or
not the laboratory is capable to adequately support the
pesticide program and meet the regulatory obligations under
the grant and cooperative enforcement agreement.
DC: Turn around time for residue and formulation chemistry
averaged 17 and 16 days respectively.
PA: 18 Days
WV: Residue - 9.25 days; Formulation - 22.38 days
DE: Residue - 21.9 days; Formulation - 23.5 days
IN: residue samples delayed due to lack of available methods and
standards to analyze many newer pesticides.
SD: poor
CA:
l. Did the reviewer find a sample backlog?
KY: yes
MN: yes, in formulations. This was due to the large number of
residue samples being collected during the project period and
especially during 3rd and 4th quarters, requiring chemists to
be temporarily reassigned to meet the demand; thus formulation
samples accumulated.
IN: no in the formulation laboratory; yes, there was a backlog of
130 samples in residue lab.
MI: 15 formulation and 41 residue samples
OH: formulation: no
residue: yes (66 samples)
SD: yes—40 days
MD: Yes.
PA: Yes
2. If yes, how many days?
KY: not specified in reviewed
OH: 90 days
MD: Four week backlog.
PA: 2 weeks
c) Minimal Standards:
KY: Results of NEIC check sample program indicated deficiencies
in laboratory abilities and controls.
IA: several samples did not met their commitments
UT: Lab needs to develop standard operating procedures. Lab needs
to improve overall recordkeeping system, improve the use of
instruments and equipment log books, and improve the
analytical reference standard tracking procedures.
SD: NEIC reviewer "was particularly concerned with the legal
defensibility of cases for which laboratory results are
crucial evidence."
HI: Unavailability of standards has slowed analysis
28
-------
Lab needs information on what to do with residue sample
disposal
NV: standard samples not available
WV: The lab staff expressed concern over the difficulty in
obtaining standards for new chemicals.
ID: Sampling procedures should be standardized to avoid potential
sample contamination. ISDA does not have a sampling quality
assurance plan in place and should develop one that addresses
these procedural and chain-of-custody issues.
d) Other:
PR Total collection of samples was 9% below that projected.
VI No indication on quality of sample handling. Total samples 84%
below projections
NY The lab was not fully functioning until well into their
project period. It is now fully operating.
AL: "The total number of samples collected exceeded the total
projected, although the distribution of samples collected was
not as projected in several categories." [Ag. use, non-Ag
use, marketplace, certified applicator records, restricted use
pesticide dealers.]
WI: a revised QAPP to be submitted by June 1990
LA: ISSUE: One major concern regarding the lab is that the
building has been condemned and may be rebuilt, resulting in
a possible shutdown of laboratory activity in the summer of
1990. This factor wads taken into consideration during the
FY 90 grant negotiations.
NM: The EPA's Office of Quality Assurance requested NMDA to
provide a much more in-depth report and suggested they use
Louisiana's FY 89 QA Report to serve as a guidance for their
FY 90 submission.
AR: An in-depth review of the laboratory was not conducted at this
time. A review was conducted in April 1989 by the Regional
QA Office and no major deficiencies were noted.
TX: The State has submitted the annual Quality Assurance Report,
and it was accepted by the EPA Regional Office.
OK: An in-depth review of the laboratory was not conducted at this
time. A review was conducted during the year by the Regional
QA office and no major deficiencies were noted.
MT: The department should re-evaluate our analytical method for
strychnine analyses.
CA: difficulty in detection of residue samples at extremely low
levels
HI: Obsolete spectrophotometer is being replaced
WA: The WSDA laboratory is in the process of revising their
quality assurance project plan.
14. Did the reviewer identify any laboratory needs, such as
more personnel or upgrading of equipment? If yes, elaborate.
NC: Could benefit by additional GC and a LC pump;
MN: "ASD sample tracking system is badly in need of maintenance
and updating."
IN: "Experiencing difficulty in obtaining Material Safety Data
29
-------
Sheets."
OH: residue lab plagued by personnel shortages over past several
years. "Unless something is done to change the career
structure and salary in the lab, it seems that personnel
shortages will be a perpetual problem."
LA: The lab still badly needs some equipment such as the GC-Mass
Spectrophotometer.
NM: The laboratory has adequate equipment and appears to be well
run. They indicated the possibility of hiring a student
technician to assist the chemist.
OK: In need of a Geographic Information System.
SD: More training needed for SDSO chemists at federally-sponsored
trainings. Reviewer noted lack of attendance on the part of
SD chemists in 1989. NEIC said SD needs to refrigerate
vegetative samples during shipment; and document sample chain-
of-custody beginning at the time of collection, rather than
upon receipt by laboratory.
MT: "The NEIC auditors felt that EPA should consider supplying new
equipment to Montana..."
AZ (A&H): resources were limited and unable to analyze some pest.
NV: Replacing old equipment with a H.P. residue sampler
OR: Need is for increase laboratory resources.
MD: The oldest liquid chromatograph is more then 16 years old;
There is a need for additional training of the chemists.
PA: There is a need for a GPC cleaning system to be added to the
lab to help process samples.
WV: New equipment was mentioned as a need.
DE: The HPLC is more than 10 years old and is currently down with
no parts yet available, however, alternative equipment is
available until new equipment is purchased. In addition, DDA
expects to formally transfer one chemist to the pesticides
section who will do all the pesticide analytical work.
MAINTAINING FILES AND TRACKING
15. List any problems with regard to maintaining files and
tracking mentioned in the review.
KY: Tracking system in good order. "Clear correlations could be
made between the inspections and actions recorded in the
manual tracking charts and what was reported in the quarterly
reports."
AL: "The States method of filing (tracking system) appears to be
sufficient."
NCSPCD: Division participating in a pilot program that involves
the development of a computerized tracking system called
PETS. Information on the pros and cons of the system
will be available during FY 90.
NCDA: "State reports that there have been problems with [PETS]
system," and is not performing as expected.
MS: computer tracking system meets all requirements of the CEA
30
-------
Guidance.
TN: "The tracking system utilized by the Pest Control section
appears to still be in disarray. No real correlation could
be made between the inspections and actions recorded in the
quarterly reports due to the inconsistencies within the
tracking procedures."
GA: no problems; well-maintained and efficiently tracked.
FLDHRS: files well maintained
SC: files met minimal requirements
IN: ISCO converted its system from a mainframe computer to an in-
house system. The conversion was not as successful as it
should have been. "Currently, the information in the computer
is either inaccessible or accessible only on a crisis basis."
WI: WDATCP was unable to complete the PETS Project, because of
difficulties in getting the program on-line.
UT: Tracking System does not maintain specific information on
individual inspections; not possible to confirm the 107
enforcement action reported by Dept.; not files for every
reported case; tracking system can't distinguish between
routine inspections and complaint or misuse inspections; case
files assembled without regard to sequence or order.
ND: "Inadequate tracking system."
CO: "The delay of follow-up actions is due in part to lack of an
adequate tracking system...A computer purchased for case
tracking should improve this situation."
MT: "Montana is working on an internal enforcement tracking
system. This project will ultimately result in revision of
the inspection forms, laboratory data handling procedures, and
quality assurance documents. The development of EPA's pilot
enforcement tracking system had slowed progress on the State
tracking system until recently."
The file review revealed a significant number of book keeping
errors in the tracking of routine inspections.
AZ (S&P): Federal use inspection information on companies is not
being added to the SPCC data bank
NV: since the last evaluation report, files are better
organized
16. Note any remarks concerning referrals from the Region.
KY: "Significant referrals were handled expeditiously, other
referrals are addressed as time allows." "Backlogs in data
entry." "Significant referrals are completed within thirty
days and complaints coming into the state office are assigned
and initiated within 24 hours."
AL: "Significant referrals were completed within thirty days. All
other Headquarter/Regional requests and referrals were
completed in a timely manner."
FLDA: State is following procedures negotiated with the Region.
MN: Five PEI inspections referred from Region; completed by MN on
31
-------
timely basis in accordance with EPA protocol.
LA: The turn around time on inspections has almost always been
adequate; however, there have been a couple of special request
referrals that were not completed and returned to EPA Region
VI in time to meet Headquarters' deadlines.
AR: The response to special requests by the EPA Regional Office
have been timely and satisfactory.
TX: Turnaround time at the SPCB is prompt. When referrals are
made, inspectors proceed immediately to conduct the inspection
and submit results to the regional office. Cases are
processed without any backlogs.
OK: Completed in a timely and satisfactory manner.
CA: Not adequately tracked and submitted
NV: Recommendations in '87 & '88 were that inspections better
understand enforcement policy and matrix, sect. 12 and the
referral procedures. Work has shown improvement.
ID: The Bureau was very "conscientious" about informing the Region
about misuse cases that seemed to meet Section 27 significant
case criteria. Response time ranged from 14 days to 77 days.
WA: The State has been "responsive" to Regional referrals.
MD: Maryland responded to 8 formal referrals from the regional
office.
VA: Virginia responded to 14 formal referrals, of those 8 were
section 27 referrals.
PA: 31 referrals were forwarded to PA and were handled correctly
and within time guidelines.
WV: WVDA responded to 2 section 27 referrals and 4 other
investigation requests.
DE: DDA responded to 5 formal referrals and investigation
requests.
17. Is the State's tracking system automated, and if not, is
it in the process of being automated?
KY: Not addressed in review, but 88 end-of-year review says an
automated system was implemented.
NCSPCD: yes
NCDA: yes
MS: yes
MN: yes, it is automated.
IN: yes
MI: not mentioned in review
OH: yes (PETS)
WI: yes (PETS)
LA: Automated
NM: The tracking system is still being done manually.
AR: Automated, but needs to be upgraded with increased memory and
add the capability to communicate via telephone with other
computers.
TX: Automated, TDA has a case tracking system by computer entitled
"Pesticide Investigation Tracking System".
OK: The OSDA complaint tracking system is good and enables them
to easily located a completed file or complaint investigation
32
-------
in progress and determine the status of the investigation.
(Do not know if the system is automated or not.)
ND: computer recently purchased for tracking
SD: yes
CO: yes
PR: no
OR: In the process of being automated.
ID: In the process of being automated.
VA: Automated
WV: Automated.
FISCAL REVIEW
18. How much, if any, money was left at the end of the fiscal
year?
KY: $0
AL: $0
NCSPCD: $2,115
NCDA: 1,098.14 —carry over requested by state
MS: $20,000
TN: $4,383.31
GA: $1,632.27
SC: $0
IN: $0
MI: $0
OH: $0
IL: $2,115
LA: No unexpended cooperative agreement carryover funds for FY 89.
NM: None
AR: None
TX: Not specifically identified. TX has financial recordkeeping
in place.
OK: None
RB: $14,250
DE: $7,000 - $8,000 to be returned.
19. Identify any problems with financial recordkeeping.
CO: Pete Menda of Region 8 Grants Office recommended that the
"recipient review and revise present travel allocation method
in order to directly charge travel per diem costs to the
appropriate cost centers based on employer's timesheets and
travel vouchers."
HI: After an IG inspection/assessment, HI implemented monthly
reports from accounting office and general services. Must
breakdown into FFY, develop a manual worksheet to track
expenditures.
WA: Recordkeeping is adequate;
DC: DC has had problems, because the final FSR's do not come out
until after December. There is a risk every year of losing
funding for this reason, and because drawdowns are not made
frequently enough.
WV: Changes to time forms are being made to improve accountability
33
-------
of time for the FY 90 grant commitment.
20. Explain any problems the State has with the cooperative
agreement.
DC: Inadequate staff (need more staff);
Inadequate telephone system; and
Financial status report (FSR) problems.
LEGISLATION
21. Identify in general terms any changes made or proposed
to the State's pesticide lavs, regulations or procedures effecting
pesticide enforcement program. Look especially for any changes in
civil penalties.
ME "At least two (2) bills are in preparation for a later
submission to the next session of legislature that would
increase maximum penalty under a civil action from $500.00 to
$5,000.00.
NH No new legislation proposed. However, they are revising and
updating the Pesticide Regulations for review by next session
of the legislation.
VT: not addressed in review
MA "The Department has completed staffing of its Right of Way
Management Program which now consists of four full-time
persons. They have also revised their Public Water Supply
regs."
RI: no changes to pesticides control law during this period.
However, the Rhode Island Governor and the General Assembly
have established a task force to overhaul the Dept. of
Environmental Management. Among several initial
recommendations is the proposal to move Pesticide Control and
Enforcement out of Dept. of Ag.
VI: Little progress made toward amending their pesticide law;
during the mid-year-review a meeting was scheduled to write
comments on draft amendments to pesticide law. Written
comments were not sent to Reg. II.
R- sommend comments be prepared and sent to Reg. II by January.
NY C iy three parts of the NY state notification regs. are in
effect. The remaining parts will be decided at the result of
a law suit.
KY: "No changes to Kentucky statutes or regulations during grant
period. KDA is working to completely revise their sections
217/217b. [Not explained what this is in review.] It is hoped
that this will be completed during the next grant period."
AL: No changes to Alabama Pesticide Law during grant period.
NCSPCD: "Several changes to the North Carolina Structural Pest
Control Law were enacted by the N.C. General Assembly during
the 1989 Session." What these changes are is not explained
in review.
34
-------
NCDA: No new legislation enacted during FY 89.
MS: Amendment to regs governing pest control operators finalized.
Requires verifiable training of technicians and owners or
employees of pest control companies who apply pesticides
and/or conduct service inspections. Also establishes training
standards and sets forth mechanics for implementing such
training requirements.
Department also proposing an amendment to the pesticide law
to include civil penalty provisions.
TN: State laws changed to allow the issuance of civil complaints
by the entire enforcement program. TDA is just beginning to
incorporate this ability into the program and are actively
working out the mechanics.
Liability Insurance requirements were raised to require
coverage up to $50,000 for an individual, $100,000 per
accident, and $300,000 total per company.
GA: No legislative changes made. A change in insurance
requirements for commercial applicators is anticipated.
FLDA: No legislative changes made.
FLDHRS: no new or proposed legislation was enacted during this
reporting period.
SC: Amendments passed: 1) Dept.'s attorneys may represent
inspectors in criminal cases; 2) Dept. is authorized to issue
civil penalties; 3) extends Dept.'s ability to regulate pest
control industry.
MN: Amendment to Pesticide Control Law changes private applicator
certification period from 5 to 3 years, distribution
restrictions, registration licensing fees.
Groundwater Protection Act of 1989 develops educational and
training programs, develops pesticide management plan,
groundwater management plan, establishes pesticide container
and recycling pilot project.
IN: No amendments made, but the Pesticide Review Board Law
Committee made a number of recommendations, and it seems
likely that they will take the drafts of the revised laws to
the Legislature: the addition of civil penalty authority;
changing the expiration date of pesticide applicators from
March 31 to December 31. ; addition of definitions such as
"chemigation" and "pesticide consultant"; adopting the EPA RUP
list by reference rather than publishing the restricted use
products in the law.
Gov. Blanchard signed into law '88 Amendments to the Michigan
Pesticide Control Act. Administrative rules and regs based
on the amendments will address certification training,
registered technicians of commercial application firms, best
management practices/ integrated pest management guidance, and
administrative procedures for the issuance of civil
complaints.
OH:) Lawn care regs approved and published; no action on another
35
-------
bill that would have added additional requirements to the
ODA's lawn care regs.
OMNIBUS Bill including authority for the ODA to issue civil
penalties for violations of the Ohio Pest. LAw introduced into
legislature.
Proposed legislation drafted by ODA to: 1) change membership
of the Interagency Pesticide Advisory Council; 2) give Council
authority to designate non-attainment areas where pesticide
levels exceed maximum contaminant levels or preventive action
levels; require persons applying specified pesticides in those
areas to obtain an integrated pest manage license.
WI: WDATCP finalized amendments to Pesticide Law and submitted
the Rule Implementation Report. "Amendments deal primarily
with clarifying and expanding commercial applicator
certification and licensing requirements and requiring
specific chemigation equipment/design requirements."
IL: 1) Passage of Lawn Care Products Application and Notice Act
which requires lawn markers, notification on golf courses,
information to customers, prior notification of application
to lawn; prior notification of application for gulf courses;
Irst offence: $100, 2nd: $200, 3rd: $500.
2) IDPH revising rules and regs for Structural Pest Control
Code. New rules effective 2/3/89. New rules establish 1)
minimum storage requirements; 2) storage requirements and
handling in vehicles; 3) more recordkeeping for general and
RUPs; 4) stricter procedures for applications around health
care and food areas; 5) mandatory reporting of hazardous
situations.
LA: The Louisiana Pesticide Law was amended in 1988 to include a
Part giving LDAF authority to monitor the waters of the State
for pesticides and to take remedial action as warranted with
penalties up to $25,000. In addition it requires the filing
of Material Safety Data Sheet for each product as part of the
St« a's .registration program. Penalties for Structural Pest
Conxrol violations have-been increased to $5,000 maximum. The
State is also working on a ticket citation program for minor
violations.
NK, NM3A did not submit proposed legislation in .989 to give them
administrative civil penalty authority; however, it is EPA's
understanding that this will be introduced in January 1990
through the Governor, since only the Governor can submit new
legislation in even numbered years.
AR: There have been no legislative changes since the last
evaluation and none are anticipated.
TX: TDA's Sunset Bill passed the legislature in late May 1989;
This expands TDA's enforcement authority by giving TDA a
consistent broad riinge of administrative penalties.
OK: No changes made or proposed.
UT: A sunrise/sunset review of Utah Pesticide Control Act was
conducted. Results not available at time of review.
ND: 1) Program budget increased from 23,776 (1987-89) to $45,238
(89-91) ; 2) provision for allowing application of RUPS by non-
36
-------
certified applicators under supervision of certified
applicators eliminated; 3) Licensing requirement for
certified commercial applicators eliminated; 4) bill proposed
to require beekeepers to register their hives with NDDA and
aerial applicators to notify beekeepers before spraying; 5)
Pest control board approved mandatory applications of private
applicators for certification and recertification.
SD: 1) "The Centennial Environmental Protection Act was passed
for protection of state water resources. The Act ...
addresses threats from agricultural practices, mining and
solid waste. Pesticide registration fees raised from $25 to
$75, $25 of which is targeted for groundwater research. 2)
SDDA will propose changing "pesticide application" to
"pesticide use" in its Pesticide Statute, so that FIFRA can
be enforced with all label specification, not just
applications. 3) Judicial ruling, effective July 1, 1989,
required new facilities involved in mixing pesticides and
fertilizers to conduct mixing, loading and rinsing over
impervious pad. Existing facilities have until Feb. 1, 1992, ot
comply.
MT: Legislature passed the "Montana Agricultural Chemical Ground
Water Protection Act" which directs the Board of Health to
adopt ground water quality standards for certain agricultural
chemicals and directs the Department of Agriculture to develop
ground water management plans. The Department of Agriculture
is also to develop field sampling and laboratory quality
assurance procedures to and to assess administrative civil
penalties against violators of the act. The Act is to be
funded by increases in pesticide registration fees by $15 per
year;, etc. ; increase annual pest, registration fees from
$50 to $90, and to increase Commercial Applicator and Dealer
License fees from $35 to $45.
CO: Sunrise/Sunset review proposed a) rewriting Act to place
specific commercial and public pesticide applicator
classifications under Departmental authority and clarifying
regulatory scheme; b) require that all consumer invoices
issued by commercial for hire applicator companies to state
that the company is licenced by CDA; c) require that a co. be
responsible for training its pesticide applicator technicians;
d) expand the types of notification Aquatic and
ornamental/turf applicators must provide to include posting
signs on properties when the pesticide is applied; e) other
recommendations: provide commissioner with authority to use
administrative law judges, order civil penalties for
violations strengthen enforcement authority when conducting
investigation of misleading safety claims by applicators.
PR: Tribal Pesticide Code passed by Tribal Council was redrafted.
RB: Tribe revised pesticide code. Revisions not mentioned in
review.
CR: "Tribal Pesticide Code updated in FY 89 and submitted to EPA
for final approval long with Applicator Certification Plan.
AZ (A&H) : Az legislature passed law in May '89 that established
37
-------
state Dept. of Ag. It will incorporate many existing
entities regulating pesticides. Dept. of Ag should be
in place by Jan '91. Worker protection laws passed June
'89 name authority with Industrial commission. Points
and penalty system was adopted Sept.'89
MD: Maryland began, in FY 89, the use of the civil penalty as an
enforcement tool.
VA: Passage of new pesticide, statute. Virginia pesticide law
underwent major revisions during FY 89. The new law is a very
comprehensive statute which should significantly strengthen
the pesticide program in VA.
DC: The civil infractions law will be revised within a year.
PA: New pesticide regulations to go with Act 1986-87 are in nearly
final form. The regulations will require increased reporting,
business licenses, increased penalties, as well as the
certification of many more applicators.
WV: WVDA is interested in pushing the current legislation for
several changes to the statute and regulations.
KS: Pesticide and chemigation laws were both amended in FY89.
(allows the Secretary to establish pesticide management areas
to reduce the Health and Env. threat of pesticides in that
area)
IA: Proposed rule to implement ground water protection act (held
public hearing). Adopted other rules (licence fees for
dealers, distributors, manufact., pest, regist., standards and
notification.
AZ (S&P) : new pest control law passed July '88; needs
authority to issue minor enforcement actions
HI: Waiting for public hearing of Pest. regs. that are being
reviewed by attorney generals office (no details)
Navajo: Navajo nation's proposed pest. regs. have been reviewed
by the tribal attorney's office and EPA project officer.
The draft will be submitted to the resource committee
for review and approval. Tribal council passed pest.
code July '86.
WA: A House Bill was adopted in April 1989. Provisions of this
bill that affect the pesticide enforcement program include:
(1) Change in licensing fees for pesticide applicators and
operators;
(2) A complaint response time has been established. Depending
on the seriousness of the incident, a response will be
initiated immediately or within 48 hours;
(3) Retention time for recordkeeping requirements has been
extended to seven years for licensed dealers and certified
applicators. All other persons applying pesticides to more
than one acre of agricultural land are required to keep
records for seven years; and
(4) The maximum civil penalty has been raised to $7,500 per
violation.
OR: In 1989 the Department received significant new authorities
and responsibilities in the following areas:
- civil penalty authority
38
-------
- ground water protection legislation
- increased pesticide registration fees
- authority for opening of eastern Oregon field office
- authority for hiring of additional inspection and support
staff
ID: Legislation activities have taken place in Chemigation, which
requires all users who fertilize or apply pesticides through
chemigation systems to be licensed.
22. Has the reviewer identified any changes that need to be
made in state law, regulations or procedures? Explain.
NY: Need to amend other parts and make enforceable provisions
KY: nothing specified by reviewer, except that changes may be
needed to 217/217b. The review does not explain what this
is.
NCDA: State says recent amendments to FIFRA may require changes
to NC's statutes. The state recordkeeping requirements
for dealers and applicators are minimal and generally do
not result in the detection of many violations."
MS: Program should vigorously pursue amendments to state statutes
to include civil penalties
FLDA: changes in certification examination once EPA promulgates
new 40 CFR 171 regs.
MI: MDA has self-imposed deadlines to complete technical standards
and regs covering the registered technician category and for
the development of State worker protection regs. Develop key
administrative rules for Bulk Chemical Facilities and
Chemigation Standards.
AR: Establish Administrative Civil Penalties. The Division is
exploring the feasibility of writing regulations to allow an
administrative civil penalty. The use of an administrative
penalty would make enforcement of the laws and regulations
administered by the Division more effective.
PR: Certification Plan and Revised Pesticide Code should be moved
through the Tribal, Dept. of Interior and EPA approval
processes as quickly as possible.
RB: Need to reassess legislative needs as Worker Protection,
Endangered Species and groundwater regs become effective.
VI: Needs to draft amendments to pesticide law. EPA is looking
forward to an update on the status of NMDA's submission of the
administrative civil penalty package to the Governor during
the FY 90 session.
TX: Continue efforts to pass piles and regulations on
recertification of private applicators.
SD: amend law to require compliance with all label directions
AZ (S&P): Amend authority to issue minor enforcement actions.
CA: Revise state plan in accord with 40 CFR changes
STATE PROGRAM MEEDS
23. Check if the review has identified a need for the
following:
39
-------
Inspectional training
MA enforcement training for new inspector
RI: "as much enforcement training as EPA has the resources
available to accommodate.
KY: additional training for Ag. Non-Ag. use inspections plus
producer inspections; instruction on report writing for pest
control officers
AL: one on one training of inspectors in field for basic
inspectional training; EPA should provide guidance on
inspections involving new initiatives when final rules are
published
NCSPCD: division expressed strong interest in additional
inspector training.
MS: inspection and new initiative training and guidance.
FLDA: basic inspectional training and one-on-one training of
new inspectors in the field.
FLDHRS: training in areas of inspection and the new initiatives
for FY 90 of ground water, worker protection and
endangered species.
IN: as much as possible for the new inspectors
MI: case development
AR: The State needs training in toxicity and hazard communication.
Other training needs include additional help from EPA to aid
inspectors.
UT: Inspection and investigation techniques
CO: Up-to-date inspection and investigative procedures
PR: Advanced inspector training and case development training
CR: Basic Inspector Training, personnel safety, case preparations,
basic training in pesticide technology
MT: additional training is needed to improve the effectiveness and
consistency of the field inspectors; plus safety procedures;
groundwater training
Navajo:
WA: WSDA has expressed the need for additional training for field
investigators.
MD: Need is for additional training of chemists.
VA: VDACS has asked for additional help in providing inspector
training in FY 90
NM: Specialized computer training is needed in order to get their
tracking system up and going. Also they have expressed
interest in attending EPA pesticide training workshops such
as Risk Assessment/Decision Making Courses at Region VI.
Equipment
NY: needs to upgrade its computer system
AR: The State needs to upgrade their computers with increased
memory and add the capability to communicate via telephone
with other computers.
OK: Need for equipment for a GIS.
SD: resources to improve lab capabilities
MT: lab equipment
OR: need for a computerized tracking system for enforcement cases
40
-------
DC: Inadequate telephone system
DE: The HPLC is more than 10 years old and is currently down with
no parts yet available, however, alternative equipment is
available until new equipment is purchased. In addition, DDA
expects to formally transfer one chemist to the pesticides
section who will do all the pesticide analytical work.
Additional personnel
MA: shortage of personnel due to financial cuts
NH: need a case officer, this position has not been approved by
the
legislature
RI: remains understaffed
VI: inspector position needs to be filled
KY: additional support to help update certification/training
materials
KS: needs an inspector
ND: needs administrative support
MT: enforcement program in need of a case preparation officer
Additional funding
MA: needs more funding from state for personnel (to make up for
cuts)
RI: appears to be underfunded at state level
NY: needs $s to upgrade computer from Division of Hazardous
Substances
LA: LDAF's major problem is lack of resources. Presently at their
staffing ceiling and are unable to hire additional staff.
NM: Lack of resources is a definite problem in New Mexico. To
successfully carry out the new grant activities, NMDA is
considering paying half the salary of a bilingual AES employee
to assist in developing publications and training.
TX: The most pressing need at the State level is additional or
more funding in the enforcement program.
CO: State complained that EPA establishes new programs without
adequate funding
CR: More funding needed for secretarial and legal assistance
OR: Request for increase in laboratory resources
Other (List)
NCSPCD: Five EPA inspector Training Manuals.
NCDA: Strong interest in EPA re-establishing a chemistry lab
for disinfectant testing. Lack of est. standards has hampered
state efforts.
State requesting the APA(?) provide some assistance in
telephone sales complaints which occur from out of state.
AL: EPA should provide guidance on inspections involving new
initiatives when final rules are published
KY: Interest in EPA participation in commercial applicator
training sessions
MS: Assistance in building a dept. library of Compliance
Strategies, Pesticide Registration Notices, Policy and
Criteria Notices, etc.
41
-------
Continual regular visits by P.O.s
GA: clearer guidelines on EPA Compliance Strategies
FLDA: Additional guidance for the new initiatives for FY 90 of
groundwater, worker protection and endangered species.
FLDHRS: continued regular visits by the Project Officer so as to
keep the SLA "up to speed" on all the varying programs
SC: certification training materials in the special program
components in an electric, format as well as in video form.
Information regarding the specific endangered species in SC.
IN: Better information of suspended/cancelled products from EPA
MI: case development, better up-to-date information on
suspended/cancelled products from EPA
OH: "states must be kept better informed by U.S. EPA as to the
status of individual pesticide products.
LA: State has requested lists of EPA sponsored computer courses,
particularly workshops and schedules of Risk Assessment and
Decision Making courses.
TX: SPCB has expressed interest in attending available training
workshops put on by EPA.
SD: EPA reps to provide guidance on developing state groundwater
protection plan
CO: Guidance on new initiatives
PR: Guidance and training on new initiatives
CR: Procedural changes: inspector needs secretarial and legal
help to spend more time in field
MT: new tracking system for inspection and enforcement
activities.
HI: too many meetings/travel expenses
Colorado River: Targeted the same facility's operations repeatedly
during a single quarter. They need a targeting system or NAIS.
Navajo: Looking to re-evaluate the pest, tech position to allow
advancement of opportunity
VA: Help in analyzing difficult/problem samples through the EPA
Beltsville lab.
REVIEW OF EPA*8 PERFORMANCE
24. Were any problems noted in the following areas? Provide
details as available.
a) State/Region communication
NCSPCD: "It is hoped that the managerial changes that are
currently being made at Region IV will make for a better
communication between both agencies."
NCDA: "better line of communication" needed
MS: slow response of Region to SFIREG requests for training of
inspectors, case development staff, and
GA: "It was strongly suggested that a better line of communication
be established between the Regional office of EPA and the
states."
Az (S&P)
VA: VDACS continues to express concern over the lack of feedback
42
-------
from other EPA Regions on referrals sent to them and from poor
responsiveness to inquires from other Regions.
PA: PA is concerned about the notification of the ongoing training
of inspectors that comes from EPA. These sessions normally
occur each year in the fall. The only complaint involves
notices/advisories which sometime come late from Washington.
DE: They also feel that EPA should not announce anticipated
publication dates for new.rules, etc., because it forces the
States to make commitments which usually are not met because
EPA delays/postpones the target date.
IN: Better information of suspended/cancelled products from EPA
b) EPA training
c) EPA Guidance
?: "States must be kept better informed by U.S. EPA as to the
status of individual pesticide products."
SD: expressed need for more timely provision of grant guidance
MT: lack of Adequate EPA FIFRA and RCRA guidance has deterred
effective response to potentially serious environmental
problems. It seems that current label directions on wood
preservative products are too vague to prevent continued soil
and water contamination... Improved labeling would enhance
enforcement efforts.
d) EPA Financial Assistance
TX: Delays in receiving grant funds.
ND: ND's success in obtaining matching funds from the state
legislature has prevented them from receiving federal funds
in the past. The Program Director expressed apprehension
state funds could expire before the plan is enacted unless the
Agency accelerates the approval process.
NV: for cert, and train
DE: DDA has expressed concern over the slow congressional budget
process.
e) EPA Compliance Monitoring strategies
f) Other:
KY: KDA was pleased with the support provided by EPA this year.
AL: "ADAI was pleased with the support and communication provided
by EPA during FY 89.
MS: Pleased with the support and improved communicating provided
by EPA during FY 89.
SC: Dept. "appreciative of the priority given to the CEAs by the
Region."
UT: "No formal review of EPA's performance has been conducted to
date."
SD: requested that EPA assess Section 18 review process. Approval
for state exemptions should be faster.
ND: Program Director frustrated with 55 gallon minimum for bulk
containers; also frustrated with 2,4-D pad requirement;
expressed concern over slowness of Sec. 18 approvals;
disappointed with cancellation of EBDC as potato seed
treatment and of aerial applications to potatoes.
CO: EPA should re-evaluate Sec. 18 application procedures: "too
43
-------
cumbersome."
OR: EPA should acknowledge that the State contributes more than
what is reflected in the present reporting system. EPA should
work with AAPCO to develop such a reporting system for "State
only" activity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
25. List the major recommendations given by the EPA Regional
reviewer.
ME: No major issues or concerns were mentioned
NH: Needs a case reviewer officer.
VT: none given in review
PR Discussions with management of PR Dept. of Ag concerning poor
inspection program
NY The regional office will review sample jackets and conduct
join inspections
NJ No major issues or concerns mentioned in the letter
VI: Needs to draft amendments to pesticide law; Needs to maintain
full inspector position; and needs experience in case
development
KY: 1) Examine lab support and arrangements; 2) Continue field
training of inspectors to reinforce classroom training.
AL: 1) Hire additional inspector; 2) EPA should provide guidance
on inspections involving new initiatives when final rules are
published.
NCSPCD: 1) Consider sending the inspectors to any pesticide
enforcement training that may be offered in the Region by EPA;
2) EPA should assist in the development of training material
and training programs to assist the field inspectors.
NCDA: none given
MS: 1) Program should establish a single set of criteria for
conducting State and EPA inspections; 2) Program should
vigorously pursue amendments to state statutes to include
civil penalties
TN: 1)Examine the tracking procedures used by the Pest Control
Section... A mechanism should also be developed to record the
enforcement actions taken on inspections and investigations
conducted in earlier quarters. 2) Consider the adoption of
uniform inspectional procedures and reporting formats; 3)
Update ERP.
GA: 1) Review more closely Inspection reports to ensure
consistency in the use of site diagrams, photographs,
collection of documentary samples when appropriate, and the
identification of these documents would be referenced properly
in the narrative report; 2) Consider i;: ill ing an administrative
vacancy or create new manager positions in the Division of
work so as to improve on the overall efficiency of the
enforcement program.
FLDA: no recommendations given in review
FLDHRS: no recommendations given in review
SC: consider the use of documentary samples as defined in
44
-------
Inspector's Manual; 2) consider discontinuing the use of the
Miranda Warning of affidavit forms.
MN: 1) Enforcement outputs should be tabulated on a more timely
basis; 2) an updated and maintained list of formulated
products for which analytical methods do not exist should be
kept routinely and provided to field staff; 3) lab should
complete revision of QA plan by 3/31/90; 4) Remind field
inspectors in writing to furnish product labeling
documentation.
IN: 1) improve the quality and reliability of their data
management system as soon as possible; 2) increase the number
of PEI inspections projected for FY 90; 3) provide as much
training to their new inspectors as they can.
MI: 1) Improve comprehensive and objective inspectional case
development. Quality of inspection documentation should
continue to be improve; 2) begin documenting, in writing,
sample integrity and sample custody; 3) continuing maintaining
the new Lab QAPP as a comprehensive and dynamic document; 4)
continue revising and updating C&T materials; 5) Amend ERP.
OH: 1) Continue to participate on the different task forces and
work with the other Ohio Agencies involved in ground water
protection; 2) send all enforcement correspondence by
certified mail; 3) submit quarterly number reports on the
existing 5700-33H form.
WI: 1)provide necessary guidance to inspectors on establishing
comprehensive and objective inspectional case files; 2) bring
PETS system into operation; 3) revise the lab's QAPP
IL: 1) Revise receipt of sample forms to indicate if pesticide
samples were obtained from pesticides or from devices that
were packaged, labeled and released for shipment; 2) continue
to work with EPA targeting producer inspections; 3) labs
should complete review and revision of QA plan; 4) assure
completion of automated data management system.
LA: (1) The SLA's reluctance to report ALL of their inspection
outputs is a problem to EPA. They report just enough to
meet their grant commitments. Louisiana is the only Sate
in the Region that does not give EPA all of their numbers
and, therefore, an overall view of the State's progress
compared to other States is somewhat incomplete. EPA
strongly recommends that LDAF report all inspectional
outputs.
(2) LDAF still has not finalized their Enforcement Response
Policy and approved the draft Violation/Penalty matrix.
This has been an ongoing problem and EPA has addressed
its importance since 1986.
(3) EPA suggests that a designated holding area be made
available and responsible staff be educated regarding
proper handling of (pesticides) chemicals for the well
being of all employees.
(4) Further clarification is needed in the area of stop sales
and releases of suspended or cancelled pesticide
products.
45
-------
NM: (1) EPA recommends that the SLA get a computerized tracking
system on line soon since their manual tracking is
obviously deficient.
(2) EPA is looking forward to an update on the status of
NMDA's submission of the administrative civil penalty
package to the Governor during the FY 90 session.
(3) Recommended that the Laboratory provide a more detailed
Annual Quality Assurance Report in FY 90.
AR: (1) Need to upgrade computers. Two computer software
programs, dbase III and WordPerfect 5.0, to be purchased
to allow capability and direct communication with EPA
computers.
(2) The State should review the present Enforcement Response
Policy and make revisions as necessary.
(3) The State should begin an aggressive enforcement program
to track violations and take enforcement actions on
multiple violators, and establish Administrative Civil
Penalties.
(4) Improve the quality of investigations so that a copy of
the product label is included in each use/misuse (follow-
up) investigation.
TX: (1) Continue efforts to pass rules and regulations on
recertification of private applicators.
(2) Violations need to be reported at the site of the
inspections.
OK: No major recommendations, review satisfactory.
KS: KSBA and EPA need to continue to work together on new
initiatives, i.e., g.w., e.s.,...
IA: State exceeded 30 day time limit on initiating an enforcement
action; conduct sample analysis within 45 days; submit
inspection reports within 20 days; use part-time of field
inspector to review cases.
UT: 1) Develop new priority-setting plan; 2) Develop and
implement new file review process and tracking system; 3)
review protocol to assess penalties and better organize and
document procedures for following penalty matrix; 4) lab must
modify procedure; 5)Improve communication between different
program and project staff members;
ND: 1) Attempt to obtain administrative assistance; 2) Increase
training and supervisory review of field inspectors to improve
quality of inspectors and case records; 3) Improve files and
develop tracking system; 4) Implement policy of obtaining
labels from Registration Division; 5) Continue to refine
penalty matrix; 6) Accelerate planning of NDDA role in
groundwater pesticide activities if NDDA plans to apply for
g.w. monies.
SD: 1) Strive to develop working relationship between SDDA and
Extension; 2) amend law to require compliance with all label
directions; 3) develop and institute non-graded exam into
private applicator training; 4) work to improve lab
capabilities and implement sample preservation and chain of
46
-------
custody procedures; 5) lobby for back-up legal support to
avoid case delays.
CO: State lab needs to continue to interact with EPA and NEIC
personnel to resolve problems of documentation.
PR: 1) Continue to emphasize Ag. use and structural use
inspections; 2) Move Cert. Plan through; 3) Continue clean-
up of zinc phosphate; 4) Inspector should attend advanced
inspector training course in conjunction with case development
training course.
RB: 1) Increase number of tribally certified applicators; 2)
Improve inspection quantity and quality; 3) Inspection should
arrange to spend one week conducting inspections with state
inspector.
CR: 1) Inspector should spend as much time as possible in the
field conducting inspections and making contact with
Reservation applicators; 2) Budget should include part-time
secretary; 3) Training for new officer; 4) Arrangements for
legal assistance should be made.
MT: 1) The EMD should work to improve the documentation and
tracking of routine inspections. 2) The EMD should finalize
an enforcement response policy. 3) The EMD should consider
realignment of the Field Services Bureau to assure continued
expeditious resolution of cases; 4) the laboratory equipment
needs of the EMD should be prioritized and formally presented
to EPA; 5) revision of the applicator training manuals and
exams as new programs develop should be a priority.
AZ (A&H): EPA and CAH re-examine state practices of reporting
agricultural pesticide use inspection activity to include
both state and fed funded inspections; CAH should
institute a penalty worksheet with rational and
documentation of proceedings CAH should continue to
coordinate and finalize (where appropriate) its
interaction with other agencies to avoid duplication of
effort.
AZ (S&P) : Amend authority to issue minor enforcement actions; Amend
data base to track fed use violations
CA: Shift some resources for Ag use inspections to other areas to
ensure commitments are met; Properly report follow up
inspection. Decrease time between completion of investigation
and submissions to EPA; Revise state plan in accord with 40
CFR changes; Continue reviewing "goldenrod" process for
private applicators
HI: Case project officer will track and target inspections
for those areas that are not being met.
NV: Training for new and old inspectors; Files denote either Fed
violation or state violation; Apply for C&T funds
ITCA: Should carefully track inspectional activities for each
tribe and re-negotiate if projections cannot be met.
Develop mechanism so that the program can continue while
new inspections are being trained. Colorado River Indian
Tribes: The number of Ag-use inspections should be re-
evaluated or inspectional activities should be spread
47
-------
equally over the entire year so that the projected number
of inspections are accomplished in all categories;
inspection summary reports should contain brief
narratives describing the kind of activities taking place
during the inspection; set up tracking system or NAIS to
better target its inspections over the entire year and
avoid inspecting the same facilities or operations over
a short period of time. Quechan Tribe: Work with ITCA
to more carefully target inspections towards Non-ag and
certified applicator records categories. Inspector
should gain more inspectional experience by participating
in training courses and conducting inspections with other
tribal inspectors. Cocopah tribe: ITCA should work
closely with the new inspector to familiarize him with
program and identify training opportunities.
WA: It is expected that with the reorganization now complete and
new employees hired, that enforcement issues will be looked
at more closely and possibly resolved. Discrepancies noted
in the inspection reports should be followed up with the
investigators and missing or delinquent cases should be
produced. All investigation reports should be reviewed by the
field supervisors prior to being finalized.
AK: Not addressed in the report.
OR: As resources are added for pesticide analysis, the timeliness
of analysis should be evaluated to asses the impact of those
additional resources. Because of the increased role of the
Oregon Operations Office, additional coordination effort
within the Region will be needed to define detailed program
responsibilities.
ID: Recommendations include reevaluation of the State's penalty
matrix, and better communication on product violations.
MD: Concern is that residue sample analysis has fallen behind and
created a "backlog". Also need for additional training of
chemists.
VA: Laboratory performance seriously below acceptable standards.
DC: None made in the report.
PA: Inspectors handle a large number of programs and remember many
laws. The move toward more specialization may help a little.
WV: Improvements needed on inspection procedures by the State.
48
------- |