£
<
33
O
\
^an-%
Mi.
O
¦z
111
CD
X PR0^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Ensuring the safety of chemicals
EPA Can Better Manage
State Pesticide Cooperative
Agreements to More Effectively
Use Funds and Reduce Risk of
Pesticide Misuse
Report No. 18-P-0079
February 13, 2018
-------
Report Contributors: Sarah Davidson
Jeffrey Harris
Natasha Henry
Jee Kim
Calvin Lin
Denton Stafford
Steven Weber
Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FY Fiscal Year
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG Office of Inspector General
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
Cover photo: Images of pesticide inspections and storage. (EPA OIG photos)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
Mi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 18-P-0079
^ \ Office of Inspector General February 13,2018
/ rri
VIV "
prO^
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review to
determine whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) negotiations,
review and approval of state
work plans for compliance
inspections—which are
required as part of Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
cooperative agreements—
support the achievement of
agency goals and
requirements.
Under FIFRA, the EPA has the
authority to regulate how
pesticides are registered,
distributed and sold, and
whether they are used
appropriately. Through
cooperative agreements, the
EPA's pesticides compliance
monitoring program awards
states approximately
$19 million annually. As part of
the cooperative agreements,
grantees must submit annual
work plans that commit to
performing a certain number of
inspections.
This report addresses the
following:
• Ensuring the safety of
chemicals.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
EPA Can Better Manage State Pesticide
Cooperative Agreements to More Effectively
Use Funds and Reduce Risk of Pesticide Misuse
What We Found
The EPA cannot ensure that its FIFRA
cooperative agreement funding achieves
agency goals and reduces risks to human
health and the environment from pesticide
misuse. We identified weaknesses in the
processes that underlie the development
and monitoring of FIFRA compliance
inspection work plans. Specifically:
Improvements in developing and
monitoring FIFRA compliance
inspection work plans support
effective and efficient use of
enforcement funding and risk
management.
• EPA FIFRA Project Officers did not consistently assess whether thefunding
requested by states for compliance inspections was reasonable. We found
that EPA funding per planned inspection can vary significantly among state
cooperative agreements. Moreover, EPA guidance for assessing whether the
funding requested is reasonable was not well defined.
• The EPA did not use the performance of completed state pesticide
enforcement work plans to improve successive work plans or to demonstrate
whether compliance inspections achieved agency goals and requirements.
Improving how pesticide program cooperative agreements are administered can
provide the EPA with the information it needs to assess the value and benefits of
state compliance inspections and make informed decisions about how many
compliance inspections states can reasonably perform each year. Improvements
will also enable the EPA to determine whether compliance inspection funding
reduces the risks pesticide misuse poses to human health and the environment,
as well as how to better target compliance inspection funding.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (1) develop and implement additional FIFRA guidance to
assist Project Officers in evaluating whether funding is reasonable given
projected work plan tasks, and (2) conduct a national review of state work plans
and performance to verify the consistent application of agency guidance and the
achievement of agency goals and requirements. The EPA agreed with our
recommendations and provided acceptable corrective actions.
Listing of OIG reports.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
February 13, 2018
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Can Better Manage State Pesticide Cooperative Agreements to
More Effectively Use Funds and Reduce Risk of Pesticide Misuse
Report No. 18-P-0079
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this evaluation was
OPE-FY15-0022. This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and
corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not
necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made
by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your office provided acceptable corrective actions and milestone
dates in response to OIG recommendations. All recommendations are resolved and no final response to
this report is required.
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
EPA Can Better Manage State Pesticide
Cooperative Agreements to More Effectively
Use Funds and Reduce Risk of Pesticide Misuse
18-P-0079
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 4
Scope and Methodology 4
Prior Report 5
2 Development and Monitoring of Pesticide Program Work Plans
Can Be Strengthened 7
EPA Funds State Grants Without Consistently
Assessing Planned Inspection Costs 7
EPA Does Not Use Work Plan Results to Manage,
Evaluate Performance 9
Conclusion 11
Recommendations 11
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 11
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 12
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments 13
B Distribution 17
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) conducted this review to determine whether the EPA's
negotiations, review and approval of state work plans for compliance
inspections—which are required as part of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) cooperative agreements—support the achievement of
agency goals and requirements.
Background
Under FIFRA, the EPA has the authority to regulate how pesticides are registered,
distributed and sold, and whether they are used appropriately. EPA oversight
includes compliance monitoring to determine whether a facility is complying with
applicable environmental laws and regulations. The EPA works with its federal,
state, territorial and tribal regulatory partners to conduct compliance monitoring.
If a facility is found to not be in compliance, an enforcement action may be taken
to protect human health and the environment.
State Primacy
Under Section 26 of FIFRA, the EPA grants states primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy)1 against the misuse of pesticides. As of September 2017,
all states except Wyoming have primacy.
As depicted in Figure 1, the EPA partners with states to regulate pesticides and
funds cooperative agreements that help primacy states implement their pesticide
programs. States with primacy conduct most compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities within their jurisdictions. The EPA has an oversight role to
ensure that the state pesticide programs are adequate and the goals of federal laws
are achieved. EPA regions conduct annual end-of-year evaluations to assess state
performance in implementing their pesticide programs.
1 FIFRA does not authorize tribes to be granted primacy.
18-P-0079
1
-------
Figure 1: State and EPA FIFRA compliance monitoring responsibilities
EPA Regional
Offices
Have primary enforcement responsibilities (primacy).
Conduct FIFRA inspections.
Report program results to the EPA.
Oversee cooperative agreements, including work plans.
Staff regional Project Officers, who negotiate work plans, monitor the
progress of work plan commitments, and provide fiduciary oversight.
EPA
Headquarters
Provides guidance and establishes priorities.
Provides funds to support compliance and enforcement activities
(via Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance).
Provides funds to supportprogram development and implementation
(via Office of Pesticide Programs).
Source: EPA OIG.
According to the EPA, inspections are the core of the FIFRA compliance
monitoring program. Inspections are conducted by federal, state and tribal
inspectors to monitor compliance, detect violations and collect evidence in
support of appropriate enforcement actions. States conduct 10 types of inspections
(Table 1).
Table 1: Types of FIFRA inspections
Type of inspection
Description
Producer
establishment
Conducted at an establishment where pesticides or devices are
produced and held for distribution or sale.
Use
Typically an observation of an actual pesticide application or an
inspection following an application.
Worker protection
standard
Involve examining practices of agricultural and pesticide handler
employers and their employees to assess compliance.
Marketplace
Ensure industry compliance with product registration, formulation,
packaging and labeling requirements.
For cause
Initiated in response to a complaint, damage report, referral, tip, or
known or suspected noncompliance.
Import and export
Ensure that pesticides and devices (e.g., insect traps) imported into or
exported from the United States comply with FIFRA.
Experimental-use
permit
Determine whether the terms and conditions of the permit avoid
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and whether the terms
and conditions of the permit are being met.
Certified applicator
license and records
Normally conducted at a pesticide applicator's place of business to
determine whether the (1) applicator is properly certified and/or licensed,
(2) required records are being maintained, (3) applicator is applying
pesticides only in those areas with acertification, and (4) records indicate
that all applications have been made in compliance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
Restricted-use
pesticide dealer
Determine compliance with FIFRA record-keeping requirements
regarding sales and distribution of restricted use pesticides.
Cancellation and
suspension
Determine compliance with the EPA's orders concerning suspended
and/or canceled products.
Source: EPA.
18-P-0079
2
-------
In one instance, a for-cause inspection at a food processing plant revealed the
inappropriate application of a pesticide and other related misuses.
Case Example: Pesticide Misuse Triggers For-Cause Inspection
Employees at a food processing plant were evacuated after reporting symptoms of a
possible chemical hazard: headaches, nausea and vomiting. The responding fire
department measured unsafe levels of oxygen, carbon monoxide and hydrogen
sulfide. Eighteen people were treated at a local hospital, with four requiring overnight
hospitalization. The state pesticide department was notified, and the state inspector
discovered pesticide containers that were taken to the emergency room to aid in the
treatment of the patients. Additionally, the inspection revealed a number of violations,
including the use of an unregistered pesticide manufactured in Mexico and a violation
of the label language that directed the pesticide not be used in commercial food/feed
handling establishments; restaurants; or other areas where food/feed is commercially
prepared, processed or stored. The violators agreed to pay the state $10,000.
Cooperative Agreements
The EPA's FIFRA State and Tribal Assistance Grant compliance monitoring
program awards cooperative agreements—funding instruments similar to grants
but which allow substantial involvement between the EPA and the awardee—to
states to help them develop and implement pesticide programs. EPA regional
offices negotiate and oversee these cooperative agreements, which provide funds
for state compliance monitoring and inspections to be conducted each year.
According to the EPA, the FIFRA State and Tribal Assistance Grant compliance
monitoring program awards states approximately $19.2 million annually.
The amount of assistance awarded to each grantee through the cooperative
agreements is determined by a funding formula that considers several factors,2
and the reasonableness of the anticipated cost of the grantee's program relative to
the proposed outputs or outcomes (e.g., the number of inspections proposed).
According to 40 CFR § 35.232, the final funding allotments are negotiated
between each grantee and the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. The
regions we spoke to said that the funding for enforcement is predominantly
determined by the funding formula but, according to the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA), the regions and grantees negotiate the
outputs.
Work Plans and Negotiations
EPA Project Officers oversee states by managing the cooperative agreements. As
part of the cooperative agreements, states are each required to submit an annual
work plan for the compliance inspections to be conducted that year, referred to as
2 Pursuant to 40 CFR § 35.232, the factors to be considered in the allotment of funds for FIFRA enforcement include
the state's population, the number of pesticide-producing establishments, the number of certified private and
commercial pesticide applicators, the number of farms and their acreage, and the state's potential farm worker
protection concerns.
18-P-0079
3
-------
the "projected inspections." The work plans require states to specify the goals of
the inspections to be conducted and to commit to conducting a certain number of
each type of inspection. In addition, the work plans provide for consistency across
state pesticide programs and facilitate the compilation of data generated from the
results of cooperative agreement work. Project Officers are required to negotiate
with states to ensure that EPA priorities are included in the work plans. Figure 2
depicts this work plan process.
Figure 2: Work plan negotiation process between EPA and states
States submit
end-of-year
results to the
EPA
States develop
and submit
work plans
to the EPA
EPA Project
Officers
negotiate work
plans with the
states
Source: EPA OIG.
The EPA's oversight responsibility requires the agency to conduct program
reviews to verify that states continue to meet the requirements for primacy. The
EPA must also conduct grant reviews to ensure that federal funds are managed
properly to accomplish the goals of the cooperative agreement and work plans.
Responsible Offices
Within the EPA's OECA, the Office of Civil Enforcement and the Office of
Compliance jointly set national priorities. The Office of Compliance develops the
EPA's FIFRA inspection guidance and conducts pesticide inspector training.
Within the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) regulates the manufacture and use of all pesticides in
the United States.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from March 2015 through December 2017. The
assignment was temporarily suspended in October; work resumed in January
2017. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
18-P-0079
4
-------
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objective.
We reviewed relevant materials, including FIFRA, applicable regulations,
guidance documents and Region 4 inspection procedures. This included review of
the following documents:
• EPA OPP and OECA, 2015-2017 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement
Guidance, March 6, 2014.
• EPA OPP and OECA, 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement
Guidance, February 14, 2017.
• EPA OECA, FIFRA Project Officers Manual, July 2002.
• EPA OECA, FIFRA Inspection Manual, October 2013.
• EPA, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Fiscal
Year (FY) 2013 and FY 2014 National Program Manager Guidance.
• EPA, Final FY 2015 Addendum to the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention FY 2014 National Program Manager Guidance.
We selected three EPA regional offices (Regions 4, 6 and 9) as the focus of our
evaluation. We judgmentally chose for review one to three states within each of
the three selected EPA regions to review the FIFRA cooperative agreement work
plans: Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina in Region 4; Texas in Region 6; and
California in Region 9.
We interviewed OPP and OECA headquarters managers, as well as EPA regional
pesticide and enforcement managers. We also interviewed regional Project
Officers to better understand the work plan review and negotiation process. We
collected and reviewed FYs 2008 through 2015 end-of-year reports for all states.
We also interviewed staff from state departments of agriculture to gather
information on their working relationships with EPA regions and their work plan
development and pesticide inspection process.
During our interviews, we obtained information about the EPA's compliance
monitoring oversight activities, such as negotiations, cost reasonableness
determinations and performance measurements. In addition, we conducted a
review of pesticide enforcement cases from a human health and environmental
impact perspective, and observed producer establishment inspections with the
states of Alabama and Georgia.
Prior Report
The OIG evaluated the EPA's oversight of state pesticide inspections in Report
No. 15-P-0156. EPA's Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections Needs
Improvement to Better Ensure Safeguards for Workers, Public and Environment
18-P-0079
5
-------
Are Enforced, issued May 15, 2015. The OIG found that EPA regions did not
consistently document or retain evidence of the quality of state-performed FIFRA
Worker Protection Standard inspections due to inadequate guidance and training.
The OIG made two recommendations; the agency agreed with both and
completed them as of July 2017.
18-P-0079
6
-------
Chapter 2
Development and Monitoring of Pesticide Program
Work Plans Can Be Strengthened
The EPA did not sufficiently engage in FIFRA cooperative agreement work plan
development, nor did the agency critique program results to confirm that the
EPA's investment was achieving agency goals and requirements. FIFRA Project
Officers did not follow guidance requiring them to assess whether funding was
appropriate based on the number and type of projected compliance inspections.
The EPA routinely approved and funded state work plans that committed to a low
number of projected inspections relative to the number of inspections completed
the previous year without adjusting the goals for the projected inspections. In
addition, the agency did not incorporate the performance of state pesticide
programs in the development of the EPA-funded cooperative agreements and did
not sufficiently monitor program performance. These conditions create
management risks that may preclude the EPA from achieving its goal to protect
human health and the environment from FIFRA violations.
EPA Funds State Grants Without Consistently Assessing Planned
Inspection Costs
EPA FIFRA Project Officers did not consistently assess whether the funding
requested annually by the states to conduct FIFRA compliance inspections was
reasonable. The 2015-2017 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance requires
this assessment, but the guidance does not include all the information needed to
facilitate a comprehensive assessment. As a result, the EPA is not able to verify
that FIFRA cooperative agreement enforcement funds were being used in the
most effective and efficient manner.
The FIFRA Project Officers Manual states that the amount of funding provided to
states must be commensurate with the negotiated and approved work plan tasks.
The 2015-2017 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance and the FIFRA Project
Officers Manual establish a requirement for Project Officers to evaluate whether
the resources requested for projected pesticide inspections are reasonable, but
EPA guidance for evaluating the reasonableness of these requests is not well
defined and is not consistently used by regional FIFRA Project Officers.
The EPA's 2015-2017 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance includes time
factor guidelines to evaluate the cooperative agreement applications (Table 2).
These guidelines were developed with input from the State FIFRA Issues
Research and Evaluation Group. The projected number of inspections are to be
multiplied by the time factor. (Table 2 refers to this time factor as "work hours to
18-P-0079
7
-------
complete activity.") The result should be compared to the number of work hours
requested by the grantee.
Table 2: Time factor guidelines
Inspection activity
Work hours to
complete activity
Agriculture use inspection
20
Agricultural follow-up inspection
20
Nonagricultural use inspection
15
Nonagricultural follow-up inspection
20
Experimental use inspection
15
Producer establishment inspection
15
Marketplace inspection
5
Import inspection
10
Export inspection
10-15
Applicator license and records inspection
5
Dealer records inspection
5
Sample collection and preparation
5
Sample analysis—residue
25
Sample analysis—formulation
11
Source: EPA.
Two of the three regions we spoke with did not use the time factor guidelines.
EPA Region 4 management said that the time factor guidelines were not used
because they do not include guidance on how to translate between work hours and
funding. In addition, OEC A management said that states have complained that
these time factors do not account for travel time.
The regional staff we interviewed used a variety of practices to assess planned
costs. For example:
• Region 4 Project Officers only assessed the reasonableness of anticipated
costs by comparing the budget for a proposed cooperative agreement to
prior cooperative agreements.
• Region 6 staff conducted cost comparisons on a regional and national
level but did not compare costs between states.
Without an assessment of funding relative to the number and type of projected
inspections, EPA Project Officers could accept work plans with large differences
in funding. For FY 2015, the EPA funding per projected inspection ranged from
$29 to $2,767 (Figure 3). Neither OECA nor the regional offices had analyzed
these differences in funding per inspection. OECA and the regions were generally
aware that costs per inspections varied from grantee to grantee but had not studied
these variations. In addition, until FY 2014, there was no evidence that OECA and
18-P-0079
8
-------
OPP were conducting an overall analysis of the pesticide inspections conducted
by the states. According to OECA, since 2014, OECA has undertaken an annual
review of state performance by analyzing the end-of-year reports submitted by
grantees, but this data analysis does not include funding.
Figure 3: Enforcement grant funding per committed inspection by state in FY 2015 a
S3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
Ill
TO >~ (0 CD
¦g> * £ i
¦a 8
< >
gag
c Q. £
° '7 5
£ VI ^
ro ro
* ¦- <
O 2
"O O) 03
ro 8
f £
i >
£ "K
— ro ^ ai -- co c "O ro jr -¦
» .3 « S ! ^ S ^ 1
'x 'ro 5
ro c ro ©
u u —
c 2 S
« a
§ 1
£
crocrorojijoo-^rorooroc
H«{1 IllI
£ I £ I 2 8 I 3
ro .12 c
C O O
ro c
> =
ro _> =
Q * -
| - 5
¦*> CO
Source: EPA OIG analysis of OECA data.
a OECA provided the enforcement funding amounts for each state to the OIG. The OIG divided these amounts by
the projected inspection numbers for each state, which were obtained from OECA's data analysis of the EPA Form
5700-33H table, "Pesticides Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Projections and Accomplishment Summary
Report," submitted by primacy states for FY 2015. This figure only includes states for which the OIG had both
enforcement funding and projected inspections information for FY 2015.
During interviews, both OECA and the regional offices mentioned the many
differences between states, including the type of information they report via the
required forms, their pesticide program organizational structures, their geography,
and how they use pesticides. For example, North Carolina reported each part of an
inspection separately, which also means that North Carolina reported completing
a greater number of annual inspections compared to other states. Despite these
differences, it is important that the EPA analyze these data to assess whether
FIFRA enforcement funding is being used efficiently and effectively to reduce the
risk to human health and the environment.
EPA Does Not Use Work Plan Results to Manage, Evaluate Performance
The EPA did not use the performance of state pesticide programs to help inform
EPA-funded work plans and did not sufficiently monitor the programs'
performance. The state work plan is the basis for the management and evaluation
18-P-0079
9
-------
of performance under the cooperative agreement, according to 40 CFR § 35.107.
As part of their work plans, states commit to completing their projected
inspections. EPA Project Officers are required to negotiate these work plans with
the states, review proposed expenditures to verify that expenses are reasonable,
and monitor the progress of work plan commitments.
We found that the Project Officers we contacted were not negotiating
commitments with or managing the work plans of states based on expected
productivity, performance measures or costs. For example, Project Officers
routinely approved and funded state work plans that committed to a low number
of planned inspections relative to the number of inspections actually completed
the previous year without adjusting goals or expectations. The work plans often
underestimated projected inspection numbers. For example, Figure 4 illustrates
that most states completed more inspections than they committed to in their
FY 2015 work plans. However, work plan goals for grantees remained
unchanged3 and performance across states and regions was left unexamined.
Figure 4: Projected number versus actual number of inspections in FY 2015
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
. - .1
.1 .l .1
I >1
REGION
9
REGION
10
REGION REGION REGION REGION REGION REGION REGION REGION
12345678
¦ P rejected ¦ Actu a I
Source: OECA.
New performance measures for state pesticide enforcement programs have been
developed and are now being implemented. These measures have been
incorporated in the EPA's 2018-2021FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
to better enable the agency to determine and analyze how well the pesticide
programs are working.
3 According to the states we contacted. Project Officers were most concerned when states did not meet the projected
inspection numbers. While there are no consequences for not meeting negotiated inspection numbers, state officials
did not want to be perceived as underperfonning. Therefore, state work plans generally kept these projected
numbers below the actual state goals for the year.
18-P-0079
10
-------
Conclusion
To effectively use its limited oversight funds, the EPA needs to update and
consistently apply FIFRA guidance to evaluate whether the resources requested in
cooperative agreement applications are reasonable. The EPA also needs to use the
performance measure accomplishment information collected from the states, as
well as other end-of-year information, to manage and improve program
performance and oversight. These actions should facilitate consistent and more
effective state performance of pesticide cooperative agreements. As a result, the
EPA could offer increased assurance that its investments in pesticide inspections
help detect and prevent pesticide misuse and unnecessary risks to human health
and the environment.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
1. Develop and implement additional Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act guidance to assist Project Officers in evaluating whether
funding is reasonable given projected work plan tasks.
2. Conduct a national review of state work plans and performance for
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act cooperative
agreements to verify the consistent application of agency guidance and
achievement of agency goals and requirements.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In the EPA's official comments regarding the draft report, the agency suggested
combining Recommendations 1 and 2. The OIG team agreed to this and the revised
recommendation meets the intent that Project Officers will evaluate whether
resources requested under cooperative agreements are reasonable. The OIG accepts
the proposed corrective action and scheduled completion date of November 30,
2019. The agency agreed with Recommendation 2 (formerly Recommendation 3)
and provided an acceptable corrective action with an estimated completion date of
May 31, 2019. The agency also provided technical comments on the draft report,
which we incorporated into our final report as appropriate. Appendix A includes
the agency's response to the draft report.
18-P-0079
11
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(in $000s)
1
11
Develop and implement additional Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act guidance to assist Project
Officers in evaluating whether funding is reasonable given
projected work plan tasks.
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
11/30/19
2
11
Conduct a national review of state work plans and performance
for Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
cooperative agreements to verify the consistent application of
agency guidance and achievement of agency goals and
requirements.
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
5/31/19
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
18-P-0079
12
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
and OIG Comments
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Report: "EPA Can Better
Manage State Pesticide Cooperative Agreements to Assure More Effective Use of
Funds and Reduce Risks from Pesticide Misuse," Project No. OPE-FY15-0022
FROM: Lawrence Starfield
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: Carolyn Cooper
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft findings and recommendations presented in
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, "EPA Can Better Manage State Pesticide
Cooperative Agreements to Assure More Effective Use of Funds and Reduce Risks from
Pesticide Misuse." OECA is agreeing in part and conditionally agreeing in part to all three of the
OIG's recommendations in the draft report. We request, however, that the OIG reconsider its
conclusions regarding the cost-per-inspection of EPA's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) cooperative agreement program based on our comments below. We
also request that the OIG take into consideration the many tools that the EPA uses beyond
inspections to achieve a robust and efficient program.
Background and Summary Comments
The draft report focuses on whether the EPA's negotiation, review and approval of state work
plans for FIFRA cooperative agreements for compliance inspections support the achievement of
Agency goals and requirements. Each cooperative agreement requires states to submit an annual
work plan that, in part, commits the state to conduct a certain number of pesticide inspections. In
the last several years, FIFRA grantees have performed 75,000-85,000 pesticide inspections
annually. This impressive number of annual inspections provides a formidable regulatory
presence and serves to ensure that the environmental and public health protections provided by
^EDSX
* A \
1®|
VPR0^°
18-P-0079
13
-------
our nation's environmental pesticide laws are realized. The work conducted by the EPA and
State Lead Agencies (SLAs) through these cooperative agreements is an excellent example of
successful federal/state collaboration.
The OIG identified areas of improvement by focusing entirely on the cost per inspection to
determine if cooperative agreement funding is being utilized appropriately. The EPA
acknowledges the importance of such a review and is prepared to take steps towards meeting
OIGs recommendations. However, using the OIG's method of calculation, it is clear that EPA
funds are being used effectively; with each inspection costing less than $500 (derived from the
OIG's approach of dividing total EPA funds ($19 million) by the average number of pesticide
inspections nationally projected or conducted). Additionally, in 2013, EPA funds accounted for
as little as 8% of some state grantees total funding, further highlighting the efficient use of EPA
funds.
Also, by focusing on the cost per inspection, the OIG draft report does not present a complete
picture of pesticide oversight. Grantees perform a wide variety of compliance monitoring and
compliance assistance activities that are captured in the work plan. Compliance activities often
vary greatly from grantee to grantee due to regional differences, making it challenging for
project officers to have a uniform approach. In an effort to improve project officer program
implementation and management efficiency OECA has already revised the FIFRA Project
Officer Manual, conducted several FIFRA Project Officer trainings and created a SharePoint site,
to meet several commitments from a recent OIG Report (Report No. 15-P-0156).
OIG Response: Although the overall average funding per inspection is less than $500, there is
a large variation between the states that should be monitored. For this reason, the OIG is
unable to conclude that the funds are being used effectively throughout the states.
We acknowledge that the EPA may consider a wider range of activities to monitor
compliance. However, the scope of this review focused on whether the EPA's processes
regarding FIFRA inspections support the achievement of agency goals and requirements. In
addition to the cost per inspection, we also reviewed the EPA's negotiation process, review
and approval of state work plans, and a sample of end-of-year reports.
In the attached "Technical Comments to Draft OIG Report on Pesticide Cooperative
Agreements" document, we have provided specific suggestions for revisions of the draft report
that more accurately reflect the status of the FIFRA cooperative agreement program for
compliance monitoring and incorporate appropriate recommendations. Additionally, below is a
summary of the OIG recommendations with OECA comments.
OIG Recommendation 1: Update and clarify Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act project officer guidance for evaluating whether resources requested under cooperative
agreements are reasonable when compared with work plan projected compliance inspections.
See OECA response below in Recommendation 2.
18-P-0079
14
-------
OIG Recommendation 2: Direct Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act project
officers to evaluate whether resources requested under cooperative agreements are reasonable
and document this assessment in the cooperative agreement file.
OECA suggests that because Recommendations 1 and 2 are so closely related, they should be
combined into one recommendation (see table below). As identified in the draft Report, the
FIFRA Project Officers Manual, as well as the FY 2015-2017 Cooperative Agreement Guidance,
already directs EPA to evaluate whether the funding is reasonable given the work plan tasks.
OECA is prepared to undertake development of additional guidance to assist Project Offices in
this evaluation. The planned completion date is November 30, 2019.
OIG Response to Recommendations 1 and 2: The agency's proposed corrective action did not
address the full intent of the OIG recommendation to direct the regional Project Officers to
implement the guidance regarding the evaluation of planned funding and tasks. The agency's
proposed revised recommendation and corrective action is responsive to updating the guidance to
Project Officers, but it does not address requiring the implementation of the guidance, which is the
focus of this recommendation.
We met with EPA to discuss the combining of Recommendations 1 and 2. The OIG team agreed to
this and included wording to ensure that the revised recommendation meets the intent that Project
Officers will evaluate whether resources requested under cooperative agreements are reasonable.
The OIG accepts the proposed corrective action and scheduled completion date. This
recommendation is resolved.
OIG Recommendation 3: (As a result of combining of Recommendations 1 and 2. this
recommendation has been revised to become Recommendation 2) Conduct a national review
of state work plans and performance for Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
cooperative agreements to ensure the consistent application of agency guidance and achievement
of agency goals and requirements.
OECA agrees that a national performance review can aid the FIFRA cooperative agreement
program and OECA has already initiated efforts to support this Recommendation. Since 2014,
OECA has conducted a national review of state performance under the FIFRA cooperative
agreements. These reviews are discussed with FIFRA regional supervisors and some
achievements, such as inspection numbers and violations, are presented to the public on ECHO
(https://echo. epa.gov/trends/comparative-maps-dashboards/state-pest-dashboard? state=NationaO.
In order to further improve program performance and oversight OECA and OCSPP are
developing an electronic database to streamline work plan submission, and enhancing the
communication and collaboration between the EPA and grantee throughout the process. OECA
is prepared to expand its existing national review of state cooperative agreements to include an
analysis of grantee performance as it relates to agency guidance/goals. The planned completion
date is May 31, 2019.
OIG Response to Recommendation 3: This recommendation is resolved. The OIG accepts
the proposed corrective action and scheduled completion date. Due to the combining of the
previous Recommendations 1 and 2, this is now Recommendation 2.
18-P-0079
15
-------
No.
Recommendation
OECA Explanation/Response
Proposed
Completion
Date
1
Update and clarify Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act project
officer guidance for evaluating whether
resources requested under cooperative
agreements are reasonable when compared
with work plan projected compliance
inspections.
Conditionally agree:
Combine Recommendation 1 & 2
Recommended Revision:
"Develop additional Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act guidance to assist
project officers in evaluating
whether funding is reasonable
given projected work plan tasks"
November
30, 2019
2
Direct Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act project officers to evaluate
whether resources requested under
cooperative agreements are reasonable and
document this assessment in the cooperative
agreement file.
3
Conduct a national review of state work plans
and performance for Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act cooperative
agreements to ensure the consistent
application of agency guidance and
achievement of agency goals and
requirements.
Agree - OECA is prepared to
expand its existing national
review of state cooperative
agreements to include an analysis
of grantee performance as it
relates to agency guidance/goals
May 31,
2019
Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact the OECA Audit
Liaison, Gwendolyn Spriggs, at (202) 564-2439.
Attachment
cc: David Hindin, Office Director, OECA/OC
Edward Messina, Division Director, OECA/OC
Rochele Kadish, Chief of Staff, OECA/OC
Gwendolyn Spriggs, Audit Follow Up Coordinator, OECA/OAP
Rosemarie A. Kelley, Office Director, OECA/OCE
Gregory Sullivan, Division Director, OECA/OCE
Lauren Kabler, Special Counsel, OECA/OCE
18-P-0079
16
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
The Administrator
Chief of Staff
Chief of Operations
Deputy Chief of Operations
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
18-P-0079
17
------- |